HVDC Transmission: Technology Review, Market Trends and Future

Outlook
Abdulrahman Alassia,*, Santiago Bañalesa, Omar Ellabbana, Grain Adamb, Callum MacIverb
a Iberdrola Innovation Middle East, Doha, Qatar
b Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
* [email protected]

Abstract:
HVDC systems are playing an increasingly significant role in energy transmission due to their
technical and economic superiority over HVAC systems for long distance transmission. HVDC is
preferable beyond 300-800 km for overhead point-to-point transmission projects and for the cable
based interconnection or the grid integration of remote offshore wind farms beyond 50-100 km.
Several HVDC review papers exist in literature but often focus on specific geographic locations or
system components. In contrast, this paper presents a detailed, up-to-date, analysis and assessment
of HVDC transmission systems on a global scale, targeting expert and general audience alike. The
paper covers the following aspects: technical and economic comparison of HVAC and HVDC systems;
investigation of international HVDC market size, conditions, geographic sparsity of the technology
adoption, as well as the main suppliers landscape; and high-level comparisons and analysis of HVDC
system components such as Voltage Source Converters (VSCs) and Line Commutated Converters
(LCCs), etc. The presented analysis are supported by practical case studies from existing projects in
an effort to reveal the complex technical and economic considerations, factors and rationale involved
in the evaluation and selection of transmission system technology for a given project. The
contemporary operational challenges such as the ownership of Multi-Terminal DC (MTDC) networks
are also discussed. Subsequently, the required development factors, both technically and regulatory,
for proper MTDC networks operation are highlighted, including a future outlook of different HVDC
system components. Collectively, the role of HVDC transmission in achieving national renewable
energy targets in light of the Paris agreement commitments is highlighted with relevant examples of
potential HVDC corridors.

Key Words: HVDC Transmission, HVDC Challenges, LCC-HVDC, VSC-HVDC, DC Cables, DC Circuit
Breakers, HVDC Outlook, Multi-Terminal DC Grids, Renewable Energy
Word Count: 13,092 (v1), 15,804 (v2), 16,600 (v3) (including the abstract & abbreviations list)
List of Acronyms:
ACCB AC Circuit Breaker MVDC Medium Voltage Direct Current
AGC Automatic Generation Control MMC Modular Multilevel Converter
B2B Back-to-Back MTDC Multi-Terminal DC Network

1
 CCC Capacitor Commutated Converters OLTC On-Load-Tap-Changer
CAGR Combined Annual Growth Rate OH Overhead Transmission Line
CSP Concentrated Solar Power PLL Phase-Locked-Loop
C2L Conventional 2-Level VSC Converter PWM Pulse-Width-Modulation
XLPE Cross-linked Polyethylene Cable RES Renewable Energy Source
CSC Current Source Converters RCB Residual Circuit Breaker
DCCB DC Circuit Breaker ROW Right-of-Way
DER Distributed Energy Resource SC Short Circuit
GEI Global Energy Interconnection Vision SCL Short-Circuit Level
HB Half-Bridge MMC Submodule SCR Short-Circuit Ratio
HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current PV Solar Photovoltaic
HVDC High Voltage Direct Current STATCOM Static Synchronous Compensator
IGBT Insulated-Gate Bipolar Transistor SVC Static VAR Compensator
Integrated Gate-Commutated Superconducting Fault Current
IGCT SFCL
Thyristor Limiter
LCC Line Commutated Converter TCSC Thyristor-Controlled-Series-Capacitor
LCS Line Commutation Switch UHVDC Ultra High Voltage Direct Current
MCB Main Circuit Breaker Branch UG Underground Transmission
MI Mass-Impregnated Cable VSC Voltage Source Converter

1. Introduction:
To meet the growing energy demand, the global annual electricity generation is anticipated to
surpass 38,000 TWh by 2040 compared to 24,000 TWh in 2016. The contribution of renewable
energy sources is expected to approach 51% of the total generation mix by 2040 compared to 22%
today [1]. This requires continuous network infrastructure development with large investments to
maintain efficient energy generation, transmission and distribution. That is, many large-scale
renewable energy power plants are located far from main demand centres, thus requiring efficient
bulk energy transmission for very long distances [2, 3]. Similar efficient and cost-effective
transmission criteria is required for offshore wind farms that have increased their market share
recently, especially in Northern/Western Europe [4-6].
In contrast, the interconnection of regional and national electricity markets is evolving globally
for energy trading and increasing the security of supply level. For example, the EU has recently set a
target for each country to achieve a level of interconnected capacity with neighbouring markets that
is equivalent to 15% of its installed capacity by 2030 [7].

1.1. HVDC Transmission Background

Bulk energy transmission/interconnection is feasible using both HVAC and HVDC links.
Historically, HVAC has been the main transmission technology benefiting from the early development

2
of AC transformers that allowed for high voltage AC transmission for longer distances and lower
losses, thus settling the Edison and Tesla “War of Currents” in Tesla’s favour. However, the
consequent development of mercury arc valves and their widespread adoption by 1930s gradually
paved the way for DC to re-enter the transmission market as they also allowed for energy to be
transmitted at higher DC voltages.
The first commercial HVDC link was built by ABB in Sweden by 1954 after years of
experimentation. The Gotland 1 link spanned 98 km, carrying 20 MW at 100 kV [8-10]. The use of
HVDC transmission evolved further with the development of thyristor valves in the 1960s,
overcoming several drawbacks of their predecessors. The main advantages were reduced weight and
space requirements for thyristors, with increased efficiency, power density and control flexibility. As
a result, thyristor based links quickly dominated the HVDC landscape. Reference [8] presents an
interesting review of the early HVDC market transition from mercury-arc to thyristor switching
valves.
Further innovation led to the development of Insulated-Gate Bipolar Transistor (IGBT) valves in
1980s [11, 12], which were introduced to the HVDC market by the late 1990s [13]. IGBT valves are
technically advantageous compared to previous options, as they offer additional grid-support
ancillary services (e.g. reactive-power support for connected AC networks and improved power
quality control [14]).

1.2. Technical HVAC vs. HVDC Assessment

The use of HVDC transmission over long distances provides several technical advantages when
compared to HVAC. DC transmission losses/costs are significantly lower than HVAC due to the
absence of transmission line capacitive/reactive charging effects. This limits the main HVDC
transmission losses to line-resistive losses, and omits the need for expensive, fast, AC line-reactive
compensators [15]. DC transmission can thus be used efficiently for very long transmission distances
that exceed 3,000 km as of 2018 [16], compared to 1,049 km for point-to-point HVAC [17, 18]. It also
requires fewer cables/conductors and utilizes the full lines transmission capacity up to their thermal
limits. This reduces the required cross-sectional area for DC cables and consequently the
transmission cost [19]. Right-of-Way (ROW) space (i.e. the required horizontal ground clearance
distance) for DC transmission is also considerably lower compared to the AC equivalent, for both
overhead and underground bulk power transmission options [20].

3
 Table 1: Technical comparison summary between HVAC and HVDC transmission.
Transmission Type HVAC HVDC

Number of Higher (3-phase conductors, lower individual ratings,

Lower
Conductors cumulatively more expensive)

Limited by skin-effect (although bundled conductors are

Utilization Full up to thermal limits
Cables/Lines used to limit it)

Higher (mainly resistive and reactive, requiring Lower (mainly resistive and corona
Losses
expensive line-capacitance compensators) losses)

ROW Higher (could exceed x3 times of HVDC) [20] Lower

Maximum Implemented Higher (3,324 km: Changji-Guquan

Lower (1,049 km: Yuheng-Weifang link in China [17, 18])
2018 Distance link in China [16])

Currently limited with significant

Availability Widespread on a global scale
predicted growth
Meshed
Grids Extensive R&D effort to develop
Protective
Well-Developed UHV Circuit Breakers HVDC Breakers and/or converters
Equipment
fault blocking capability

Cost Significantly Lower Higher (converter stations)

Substations Low transformer and HV equipment losses Higher station losses
Losses [21]
(0.3% in AC double circuit) (could exceed 1% for VSC)

UG Cables < 50-100 km Beyond HVAC limits

Economic Viability Overhead Line < 300-800 km (Point-to-Point Links)

Having said that, the expensive rectifier and inverter stations for AC/DC and DC/AC conversion,
which are not required in HVAC case, significantly add to the overall HVDC transmission cost. That
is, DC transmission fixed cost (stations and equipment) is much higher compared to AC, whereas line
costs and losses are highly skewed in the favour of DC. Thus establishing a breakeven distance for
both technologies after which DC transmission becomes economically preferable.
The HVDC breakeven distance estimations vary but typical ranges expand between ~300 km to
~800 km for overhead lines and ~50 km to ~100 km for offshore/underground cable links [15, 19,
21, 22]. This variability is related to individual project conditions (e.g. MW/kV rating, transmission
terrain and local policies). Table 1 summarizes the main comparison points between HVAC and HVDC
transmission, while a more detailed evaluation can be found in [21].
Some applications necessitate the use of reliable HVDC stations as a sole option to link two
asynchronous AC power systems in different countries [23] or within the same country, as in Japan
(with both 50/60 Hz systems) and the United States (with asynchronous 60 Hz systems) [24-26].
Figure 1.a qualitatively summarizes the cost evolution of HVAC vs. HVDC converters with distance,
indicating breakeven points, whereas Figure 1.b provides an example from ABB, comparing the costs
of different transmission alternatives for a 6,000 MW/2,000 km link [20].

4
 Collectively, the commissioned; operational HVDC global capacity has well exceeded 200 GW as
of 2017, and is expected to surpass 400 GW by 2022 based on announced projects pipeline [27].
Further growth is dependent on market demand and technology development. Figure 2 summarizes
the expected cumulative HVDC capacity until 2022.

1.2.1. Conversion of HVAC lines to DC Operation

Due to the technical advantages of HVDC, a conversion of HVAC lines to DC operation might be
justifiable (i.e. in terms of expensive HVDC converter stations installation) in cases when a
transmission capacity expansion is required, benefiting also from the robust HVDC control schemes
that improve the system dynamic response [28]. A transition to DC operation is mainly advantageous
in terms of maximizing the conductors’ utilization, increasing the transmitted power capacity and
decreasing the corona effect compared to AC [29-31]. However, techno-economic analyses are
required to assess the different AC uprating techniques such as the use of series AC compensators,
Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) or STATCOM devices against the option of converting to
HVDC transmission. Early research works presented and discussed the HVAC to HVDC conversion
idea, illustrating the magnitude of potential capacity increment up to 3.5 times by adjusting
transmission voltage and conductors’ configuration [32]. Conversion to DC operation requires
installing HVDC converter stations rated at the full capacity at both ends and may also require the
adjustment of transmission tower heads and insulators to accommodate DC requirements. Several
methods and case studies have been subsequently presented in literature with variable power
capacity increment factors that are dependent on project/transmission configuration [28, 30, 31, 33-
35]. The authors of [34] presented a summary of 12 relevant works in literature, including case
studies and evaluations of different technical and environmental effects on the conversion feasibility.
On the other hand, a CIGRE working group developed a comprehensive guide on AC to DC line
conversion including economic and technical constraints, while presenting various case studies such
as the conversion of parallel 287 kV AC circuits in the United States to DC operation [28]. Another
case study presented in [31] concluded the feasibility of converting a 380 kV double-circuit AC line
to hybrid AC/DC operation (i.e. converting one circuit to DC operation), where the power capacity of
the converted DC circuit is doubled with a permissible voltage increase by the conductors’ limits up
to ±450 𝑘𝑉.
In terms of practical implementation, it has been reported recently that an AC line of the UltraNet
project in Germany has been converted from 380 kV AC to DC, which significantly increased its power
transmission capacity. Similar implementations are being studied for various projects where
transmission capacity expansion is a requirement [36]. Similarly, AC asset conversion is taking place

5
in a pilot project “Angle-DC” in Wales by ScottishPower to convert a 33 kV AC line into ±27 kV
Medium-Voltage DC operation with a similar goal of maximizing the line capacity in response to the
surging electricity demand [37]. This introductory section serves to illustrate the potential and
capabilities of DC transmission as a serious competitor to AC transmission in various applications.
1.3. Contributions and Scope
Several HVDC reviews have been published in literature, targeting different aspects of the
technology adoption. A significant number of reviews focus on individual system components (e.g.
converter stations, cables and protection equipment) [10, 38-40], while others provide detailed
system-level comparison with other transmission alternatives (e.g. VSC and LCC based HVDC, or
HVDC vs. HVAC) [21, 41, 42]. In addition, other reviews target implementation outlook and
challenges for HVDC technologies within a geographic/policy based context [15, 43, 44].
However, a comprehensive market study and technical review has not yet been fully addressed to
the best of authors’ knowledge. In addition to an updated, detailed, step-by-step overview of HVDC
technology and outlook on a global scale that combines both utility and academic experiences. This
paper thus presents a high-level assessment of the available technologies, starting from individual
components to system level analysis, while providing relevant and carefully selected case studies
from different international markets. The paper also demonstrates the role of HVDC in achieving RES
targets. Collectively, the present paper cites 248 works from literature, 75% of which were published
during the past 5 years.
The main contributions of this paper are summarized as below, where Figure 3 graphically
presents the logical sequence followed in this work.
a) Comprehensive review of HVDC systems drawn from real projects and authors critical assessment
of existing literature based on their expertise.
b) Highlights of contemporary technical and economic challenges of HVDC transmission systems.
c) Comprehensive summary of market data, costs, and statistics for individual system components
and overall structures.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Main HVDC market trends in terms of global capacity
distribution and technology supplier landscape are first discussed and analysed in Section 2, which
gives important understanding of the market dynamics and global demand variation.
Section 3 presents an overview of the main HVDC transmission system components and a detailed
assessment of the state-of-the-art technologies, including a summary of system-level control
algorithms. This section is concluded by technical and economic comparisons between different
competing HVDC technologies with relevant case studies.

6
 Section 4 summarizes the main contemporary system-level challenges to the HVDC transmission
market, focusing on network operation and technology requirements. Section 5 then highlights the
HVDC technology outlook and the required development areas to overcome existing technical and
operational challenges, with a summary of literature and expert predictions for development limits
by the end of next decade. The overall growth factors of HV interconnectors are also analysed in this
section, driven by supportive cross-jurisdiction interconnection policies and the anticipated large-
scale distant onshore and offshore renewable energy expansion to meet the national renewable
energy integration targets. Finally, the manuscript sections are summarized by concluding remarks.

(a) (b)
Figure 1: HVAC vs. HVDC cost comparison: (a) qualitative breakeven distance assessment. (b) cost and ROW
estimation for a 6,000 MW transmission for 2,000 km [20].

Figure 2: Capacity evolution of HVDC interconnectors based on BNEF raw dataset [27].

7
 Figure 3: Summary of the topics covered by this paper and the contribution of HVDC interconnectors
adoption in serving the global renewable energy expansion landscape.

2. HVDC Market Overview

This section presents a detailed review of HVDC transmission market status and trends in terms
of capacity evolvement, geographic/demand distribution and leading system
manufacturers/vendors. The following statistical analysis is mainly based on a raw dataset released
by BNEF in February 2016. The analysis covers operational worldwide projects that are
commissioned since 1965, and spans to cover pipeline projects until 2022 that were announced up
until the dataset release [27]. This dataset underwent a filtration process excluding decommissioned,
abandoned projects, in addition to adjusting some inconsistent entries by the authors and adding a
number of projects that were missing using other literature and manufacturers sources, which are
cited where needed. The reviewed dataset consists of 252 considered projects that are either
commissioned, announced or permitted/under construction. Several subsets of the available data are
considered hereafter in this paper based on data type availability (e.g. 170 of the 252 projects had
data relevant to suppliers/manufacturers). The use of any subset in this paper is clearly mentioned
in order to provide the reader with a reference sample number to the illustrated comparisons. The
numbers presented are thus indicative of global trends but do not provide an absolute measure due
to the described subsets utilization.

8
2.1. HVDC Geographical Landscape
As Figure 2 illustrates, the total expected HVDC transmission capacity operational by 2022
surpasses 400 GW. More than half of this capacity (~52%) is internal in Asia (i.e. both sending and
receiving ends are located in Asia). This market domination is mainly influenced by China and then
India as key market players. Many HVDC projects in that area are constructed to transmit bulk energy
from distant generation sites/renewable energy sources to major load centres over very long
distances due to the vast geographic sparsity of these countries. Several recent projects in China are
highly rated at 6,400 MW/±800 kV [2, 13, 27, 45], with some links already exceeding 10,000 MW [16,
46]. This development has pushed the limits of available technologies and encouraged manufacturers
to invest in higher-rating equipment and testing facilities. For instance, main HVDC suppliers (ABB &
Siemens) have recently announced their new 1,100 kV single-phase transformer units for Ultra HVDC
(UHVDC) applications [47, 48].
Based on [27] dataset analysis, it is estimated that the average capacity for internal Asian projects
is around 4,000 MW, which is significantly ahead of other regions (e.g. 1,600 MW for Central & South
America, compared to 1,500 MW for North America and around 1,100 MW in Europe). The evolving
Chinese dominance in particular over the global HVDC capacity is evident in Figure 4, which
illustrates the main markets share between 2010-2017. Similar trends are persistent over longer
periods; though graphical illustration is presented for this period in particular due to its contribution
to the rapid HVDC expansion presented by Figure 2, especially in China [2] .
The largest number of recorded projects lays in Europe. Yet the internal European projects
capacity accounts for 22% of global HVDC projects compared to the Asian capacity dominance
illustrated earlier due to the demand distribution and geographical variations. That is, constructing
expensive UHVDC links with very high transmission capacities is only justified when there is a
matching demand in importing areas. In this context, the moderate average capacity of European
HVDC links compared to that of China is reasonable, considering the absence of the need case for very
high power transfer or very long distance links. Instead, cross-borders point-to-point HVDC links
with 1-2 GW capacity are common in Europe as part of EU incentives and initiatives to increase the
interconnection of markets and security of supply [15, 39].
In fact, several HVDC links are supported both financially and regulatory by the EU under the
“Projects of Common Interest” pillar with several defined priority energy corridors such as the
“Priority Corridor Northern Seas Offshore Grid” and “Priority Corridor Baltic Energy Market
Interconnection Plan”. These plans, including both onshore and offshore projects, serve the EU target
of achieving its energy interconnection capacity target of 15% (relative to the member states

9
installed capacity) by 2030 [7, 49, 50], while supporting broader utilization of available, sparse,
renewable energy sources. Some European countries have already exceeded this target by 2014.
Namely, Austria (29%) and Belgium (17%) [7]. This European trend for interconnection of electricity
markets is intended to help facilitate proposed plans to reduce nuclear and thermal based
generation and to replace it with renewable energy, mainly offshore wind and PV [15].
A correlation can also be observed between the discussed geographic capacity rating distribution
and the transmission DC voltage as higher power is transmitted more efficiently at higher voltages
[21]. Asia has the highest average transmission voltage as many of its established HVDC links since
2010 are rated at ±800 kV, and lately up to ±1,100 kV using overhead transmission lines. Brazil has
also recently inaugurated its first ±800 kV HVDC system for +2,000 km point-to-point power
transmission at Belo Monte [51]. On the other hand, the maximum DC transmission voltage at any
other location is currently limited to ±600 kV due to the moderate power rating and distance of the
implemented projects. Figure 5 summarizes the average and maximum HVDC transmission voltages
at different continents, and compares these numbers to the average power rating per area.
Finally, Figure 6 shows a world map summarizing most of the existing and some planned HVDC
links based on data from the European Joint Research Centre released in 2017 [52]. Some planned
projects are missing from the map (e.g. the Biscay Gulf interconnector between Spain and France
[53]), yet it reflects the generic landscape of HVDC transmission geographic distribution.

100%
90% 41.0 44.0
6.66 5.9
80%
6.6 9.4
70%
7.1 14.0 6.8
60% 14.5

50%
40%
30% 109.8 104.6
2010-2017
20%
Global Capacity:
10% ~180 GW
0%
Sending (GW) Receiving (GW)

China India Brazil Russia United States Germany Rest of the World

Figure 4: HVDC global capacity distribution between 2010 and 2017, based on [27] raw dataset.

10
 1,200 1,100 Average Voltage (kV)

Maximum Voltage (kV)

1,000
800
800

DC Voltage (kV)
600 600
600 550
500
400 380 400
400 320

200

0
Asia Europe N. America S. America Other Areas
(4 GW) (1.1 GW) (1.5 GW) (1.6 GW) (1.0 GW)

Figure 5: Global Distribution of HVDC Transmission Voltage with (average power per area), based on [27]
raw dataset and [51] .

Figure 6: Global HVDC capacity distribution overview as of 2017 [52].

2.2. Main HVDC Converter Suppliers

The first commercial HVDC link was commissioned by ABB more than 60 years ago using Line
Commutated Converter (LCC) technology [13]. After more than 60 years, the HVDC converters
market is still dominated by three suppliers: ABB, Siemens and Alstom Grid whose energy business
was recently acquired by General Electric (GE) in 2015. The following statistics are based on a subset
of 170/252 projects from the BNEF dataset with available suppliers’ data [27]. Missing project data
is not concentrated in a single geographic location which ensures the presented conclusions give a
valid indicative representation of global trends, if not a definitive absolute measure. This analysis
aims to identify main HVDC market contributors and the distribution of their activities in terms of
geography and technology adoption to provide the reader with a technical context of the global HVDC
scene.

11
 Figure 7 presents the main suppliers-based statistics, where the term ABB/Siemens or GE Lead
indicates the existence of multiple suppliers in a project. That is to say, classifying a project as ABB,
Siemens or GE lead does not mean that the other two or even other suppliers are not present in this
particular project, rather, the classification aims to simplify the suppliers’ landscape analysis as
allowed by the available data.
Being a mature technology used for decades and more suitable for overhead high-power
transmissions [8, 54], the number of LCC based projects is significantly higher than their VSC
counterparts. Although the latter provides more technical advantages. Further technical discussion
on converters technology is presented in Section 3. Figure 7(b) summarizes the technology based
suppliers’ comparison, based on the same available BNEF data from 170 projects, where N/G
indicates missing technology information.

(a) (b)
Figure 7: Global HVDC technology suppliers landscape based on: (a) geographic distribution, (b) converter
stations technology. Data: [27] based on 170/252 HVDC projects sample.

3. HVDC Technology Assessment

This section provides detailed assessment of the available HVDC transmission technologies by
first introducing typical HVDC system structure, followed by a specific review of each component
within the system. Namely, the section covers converter stations, converter transformers,
transmission options as well as a summary of control schemes and protection equipment. Relevant
case studies discussing the design alternatives from two real HVDC projects are also presented. It is
important to note that the equipment footprint, distribution and proportions vary significantly with
rating/technology. Thus, a generic HVDC structure overview is presented in Figure 8, while briefly
summarizing main system components with their available technologies and status.

12
 Figure 8: Generic HVDC transmission project layout with component-based description. DCCBs are not
typically implemented in point-to-point links, and are displayed to illustrate their principal of operation.

3.1. Converter Stations

The backbone of any HVDC project is the converter station as it converts AC voltage to adequate
DC transmission voltage level (AC/DC converter) at one end, and converts the DC voltage back to
adequate AC grid interfacing voltage level (DC/AC converter) at the other end. The notion of sending
and receiving end are often used interchangeably depending on the power flow direction [55]. Two
main converter types are being used in HVDC links: Line Commutated Converters (LCCs) and Voltage
Source Converters (VSCs). Both are discussed below in terms of technology overview, required
auxiliary equipment (i.e. filters and reactive compensators), available ratings and their economical,
technical viability.

3.1.1. Line-Commutated Converters

LCC converters, as the name implies, are operated based on the AC transmission line parameters.
Their switching frequency matches the line frequency (50-60 Hz). Gate control signals are used to
direct their operating (i.e. rectifier/inverter) mode based on thyristor firing angles (ideally: 0 − 90°
for rectifier and 90 − 180° for inverter mode), as well as for power quality regulation [56, 57].
As a result, LCCs lack AC faults ride through capability and have no inherent black-start capability.
That is, they cannot be used to restart a blacked-out AC systems connected to their terminals since

13
thyristor operation is dependent on line frequency voltages which will not exist in case of a black-
out. To overcome this limitation, the first HVDC link in Gotland used auxiliary synchronous
condensers powered separately to restore the HVDC converter operation in case of an AC fault, which
in turn could participate in restoring AC system operation [58], adding to the system cost and
complexity. Different research works have evaluated the technical requirements and possible control
techniques for successful participation of LCC stations in AC systems black-start [59, 60].

3.1.1.1. Technical LCC Assessment

Conventional LCC stations utilized 6-pulse thyristor bridges shown in Figure 9(a). The converter
operation depends on the thyristor firing sequence to produce a unipolar DC voltage and current
outputs. The 6-pulse cyclic DC output is smoothed by the DC reactor connected at the DC output side,
with the aid of additional DC filters to ensure power quality requirements are met. The smoothing
reactor is rated for full converter current (increasing its size) and is used additionally to mitigate
abrupt current variations, prevent commutation failure (CF) and maintain DC current continuity
during light loading conditions [61]. The term CF refers to the failure of DC current to commutate
from the outgoing thyristor to the incoming thyristor when the AC voltage distortions in the host AC
grid affect the firing sequence of the converter valves. CF leads to simultaneous conduction of more
than two thyristors and sudden drop in the DC voltage or even creation of DC short circuit across the
link.
In contrast, Figure 9(b) shows a high-level block diagram of the more common 12-pulse LCC
converters, consisting of two series connected 6-pulse units fed separately by Y-Y and Y-Δ
transformers to create a required 30° phase-shift for commutation [56]. Advantages of 12-pulse
converters include their enhanced reliability, reduced harmonic currents in AC and DC sides and
filtering requirements. Typical power loss in each LCC station are ranging from 0.6% to 0.8% [15, 21,
54]. Detailed discussion and derivations of LCC operation principle is found in [56, 57, 61].
LCCs are classified as Current Source Converters (CSC) as they permit DC current flow in one
direction. Power-flow-reversal thus necessitates reversing the DC voltage polarity at both converter
stations (i.e. shifting between inverter/rectifier modes). This process creates significant DC stress
levels on transmission and station equipment that could damage some cable types as discussed later.
Yet, this occasionally does not pose a major limitation since power-flow reversal is often not required
as in case of HVDC transmission from distant generators to load centres.

14
 Figure 9: Typical Line-Commutated Converters Topology: (a) 6-Pulse bridge converter, (b) 12-Pulse
bridge converter.

That is, high-Power LCC transmission often links generation areas with higher inertia and short-
circuit level to receiving load centres that could be substantially weaker due to their lack of rotating
machines [46, 62]. Connecting receiving LCC stations to weak AC networks can cause significant
problems (e.g. commutation failure). A network short-circuit ratio (SCR) is widely used in power
systems to characterize the strength of AC grids. This parameter is traditionally defined as the ratio
between a network’s three-phase short circuit fault level (SCL) at the point-of-common-coupling
(PCC) to the rated DC power of the HVDC [63, 64]. IEEE standard 1204-1997 classified an AC grid as
weak if its SCR < 3, and very weak when SCR < 2 [65]. Other recent works investigated various limits
and definitions of the SCR and other assessment parameters to accommodate emerging multi-
terminal and multi-fed HVDC systems [63, 66].
Another major disadvantage of LCC converters is their inherent consumption of around 50% to
60% of their operational MW as reactive power. This is due to the inherent delay of their current
waveforms with respect to commutation voltage. Necessitating the operation of additional,
expensive, reactive AC compensation equipment [56, 67, 68].

15
 Overall, LCC projects still dominate the HVDC market as indicated by Figure 7(b). The technology
is well established despite the abovementioned design challenges. Combinations of LCC converter
stations currently provide the highest available ratings and power transfer capabilities in HVDC
market, recently achieving 12,000 MW/±1100 kV in China with the Changji-Guquan link [16, 47].
Different LCC design variations have also been proposed over time to mitigate the described
limitations, including Capacitor Commutated Converters (CCCs). This type of converter is briefly
discussed in the following subsection.

3.1.1.2. Capacitor Commutated Converters

LCC stations connected to weak AC grids are more prone to commutation failures that can lead to
significant power loss. Thus, the CCC configuration has been proposed and successfully implemented
by installing series capacitor modules between converter transformers and the inverter thyristor
valves. This modification reduces the effective stations reactive power consumption seen by the AC
side (down to 10-15% [69]) and consequently increases the power factor, reduces reactive AC shunt
requirements and mitigates the chance of commutation failures [70]. The Brazil-Argentina Back-to-
Back HVDC interconnector with a total capacity of 2,200 MW is the main example. ABB used this
technology to compensate for reactive power and avoid building an additional synchronous
compensator [71]. Though, large-scale implementation of CCC requires complex control to balance
capacitor voltages and achieve stable operation. Practically, CCCs are implemented in a limited
number of projects, because conventional CCC schemes are challenging in terms of: i) demonstrating
undesired transient response after unbalanced faults. ii) requiring additional arresters to limit their
charge in case of abnormal operation; and iii) increasing the voltage stress on the thyristor valves,
which can reach up to 2 or 3 p.u. [70, 72, 73]. Finally, researchers are actively attempting to address
these challenges by proposing different dynamically controlled-capacitors using active modules (e.g.
the Thyristor-Controlled-Series-Capacitor, TCSC) to replace the conventional fixed capacitors with
promising potential [70, 72, 74].

3.1.2. Voltage-Source Converters

The first implementation of VSC converters technology in HVDC transmission was in 1997, using
IGBT valves for the 3-MW Hällsjön-Grängesberg test link in Sweden by ABB [13]. Since then, VSC
technology has improved significantly and proven itself as a key market competitor that has been
gradually replacing LCC options especially in offshore applications and power transmission projects
with ratings of less than 2,000 MW (highest operational VSC rating). A recent study published by
BNEF reported that the share of VSC technology from the total number of new projects could
approach 65% by next decade [75].

16
3.1.2.1. Technical VSC Assessment
The shift towards VSC technology is expected to continue due to its technical superiority and
gradual ratings development. VSCs are self-commutated, operable in 4-quadrants, and do not depend
on line voltages, rather, they rely on external control voltage signals for commutation [41, 76]. Power-
flow reversal in VSC stations is based on reversing the DC current direction while its voltage polarity
remains constant , which is much faster and reliable compared to LCC [77]. These features are
advantageous in terms of establishing the VSC ability to:
- Utilize advanced switching techniques (e.g. Pulse-Width-Modulation (PWM) [78]), allowing for
switching frequencies in the lower KHz range [79, 80]. This significantly reduces the harmonic
filters sizing requirements by moving the main distortion frequency component away from the
baseband (50-60 Hz) and leads to a significant reduction in reactive equipment and footprint costs
compared to LCC.
- Ride through symmetrical and asymmetrical AC network faults and offer post-fault black-start to
the host AC networks, which allows the converter to initiate the restoration of rated AC network
voltage in a post-black out scenario. Several VSC black-start implementation setups and relevant
control techniques are discussed in [58, 81, 82].
- Independently control active and reactive power consumption/generation. This makes it possible
to support the AC grid power quality (i.e. converter stations can even act as independent
STATCOMs during DC transmission line outages, or can provide reactive power support while
transmitting active DC power)) [14, 76].

The basic structure of VSC stations (two-level arrangement) is shown in Figure 10. Different
configurations of the two-level arrangement are employed in existing links. For instance,
conventional two-level (C2L) converters that utilize series/parallel strings of IGBT valves in a similar
configuration to thyristor-based 6-pulse converters [13]. Modified topologies have later emerged and
are widely adopted in recent projects. For instance, Siemens has launched its HVDC Plus scheme
which utilizes VSC based Modular Multilevel Converters (MMC) as its core technology [83, 84]. The
NEMO interconnector, commissioned in early 2019, also uses HVDC Plus converters (with MMC).

3.1.2.2. Modular Multilevel Converters

The technical operating principle of MMC technology relies on replacing switching series
semiconductor strings with equivalent IGBT/capacitors submodules (SMs) that provide enhanced
operation quality with a high scalability/flexibility factor, in addition to increasing the converter
station fault tolerant operation. The basic arrangement of Half-Bridge (HB) MMC is also illustrated in
Figure 10 which highlights the main differences as compared to C2L-VSCs. An increase in the number

17
of SMs permits the MMC to generate sinusoidal AC voltages with practically negligible harmonics,
thus reducing or even eliminating the need for AC and DC filtering (when very large number of levels
is used) [85].
MMCs also decrease the submodules voltage/current stress, while reducing switching losses and
filtering requirements compared to other VSC topologies by effectively distributing the main bulky
DC link capacitors into smaller units embedded to the submodules, (see Figure 10) [41]. Qualitatively,
the advantages of MMC-VSC can be summarized as: 1) modularity and scalability. 2) high-efficiency.
3) superior harmonics performance with increased number of SMs per arm [42]. Some existing and
operational MMC-HVDC projects are: Trans Bay Cable (400 MW/±200 kV, USA, 2010) and INELFE
(2x1000 MW/±320 kV, France-Spain, 2015) [86].
It is expected for MMCs to dominate the VSC-HVDC landscape as the technology advances further.
At present, MMCs are the preferred industry choice for VSC-HVDC with stations power rating of up
to 1,000 MW [87]. A published report on HVDC economics highlights that the economic case for
MMCs is currently better when compared to conventional VSC converters in several cases [88].
However, the reliability of MMC based systems is still an active research area due to the large number
of components involved [89]. Accordingly, extensive research efforts are underway to increase MMC
efficiency and reliability through innovative topologies and control algorithms that use different
modular cell structure (e.g. Half vs. Full Bridge) [87, 90-92]. The implementation of MMCs in several
VSC-MTDC network configurations is also preferable due to their potential fault-blocking capabilities
[78, 93]. In fact, several Multi-Terminal MMC-VSC projects are either commissioned or under-
construction in China as illustrated in Table 2, with the largest being the Zhangbei four-terminal DC
grid (4,500 MW/±500 kV) that aims to meet the expected higher demand during Beijing 2022 Winter
Olympic Games [94].

Table 2: List of some existing and planned Multi-Terminal MMC-VSC Projects in China
System Name Terminals Rated Power (MW) Rated MTDC Voltage (kV) Status
Commissioned
Nan’ao [95, 96] 3 200/100/50 ±160
(2013)
Commissioned
Zhoushan [97] 5 400/300/100/100/100 ±200
(2014)
Under
Zhangbei [94, 98] 4 3,000/3,000/1,500/1,500 ±500
Construction

The possible use of Integrated Gate-Commutated Thyristor (IGCT) valves in future MMC
implementations also has a significant potential due to their higher ratings and reliability. The
lifecycle cost of IGCT compared to IGBT for HVDC applications is estimated to be less in [99], which
also presents an interesting comparison between the two switching devices for MMC.

18
 Currently, VSC-HVDC station losses vary based on the adopted topology, with a typical magnitude
of 1% per station (varies depending on the topology and switching frequency, and estimated to be
less by some recent sources [54]). Notably, it is predicted that new MMC station losses could
approach LCC losses range by 2020. It is also important to note that different variations to the
discussed topologies exist and could be utilized on an application specific basis.

Figure 10: Basic structure of VSC converter station, showing generic two-level topology and the advanced
Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC) with Half-Bridge cell modules.

3.1.3. LCC vs. VSC Comparison

After reviewing the main features of HVDC converter technologies, the LCC and VSC options are
compared in terms of their main technical and economic parameters. Although the current market
share of VSC considerably lags the LCC technology, the expected trend is for VSC share to increase
further as the technology advances and allows for higher ratings at reasonable cost that justifies its
added technical capabilities [80]. NEMO interconnector is an example, where initial project planning
in 2008 considered using LCC technology since VSC alternatives were not tested for higher power

19
ratings, such as 1,000 MW. Yet the consequent VSC development shifted the adopted technology to
MMC-VSC [100].
Further, VSC technology is more suitable for DC grids implementation based on its constant DC
voltage behaviour and control advantages [78, 101, 102]. Unlike the current-source based LCCs that
have limited applicability in multi-terminal DC (MTDC) grids because reversing power flow direction
at any connected station would require reversing the voltage polarity for all the other connected DC
stations [40]. The role of LCC technology in MTDC implementation is thus mainly restricted to hybrid
applications that aim to facilitate the integration of large LCC assets into VSC based DC grids [103,
104]. In contrast, conventional VSC stations also have smaller physical footprint compared to a
similarly rated LCC station by 40-50% [75].
The present moderate implementation limit of 2,000 MW for VSC based project is mainly justified
by the stations significant cost increase beyond this point compared to the well-established LCC
technology as illustrated by Figure 11, which is based on a UK transmission dataset from 2015 [105].
This cost dataset source is selected as it is classified in [106, 107] to provide the least deviation from
real costs when used for HVDC cost modelling. It is important to note that converter stations cost is
variable and project dependent, yet the presented sample data accurately reflects the described
trend. The sharp cost increment of VSC stations is explained by the moderate maximum available
IGBT voltage/current ratings. Data from recent ABB releases [108] show that their high voltage IGBT
modules rating ranges from 1,700 V to 6,500 V. The highest current withstanding capability is
attributed to the 4,500 V IGBT modules, justifying their common use in HVDC. In contrast, thyristors
are readily available at higher ratings: (1,600 V to 8,500 V per module with currents between 350 A
and 6,100 A) [108].
For ease of illustration, assume a hypothetical converter rated for 400 kV DC link voltage and 800
MW rated DC power, which can be realized by two-level VSC or LCC. With typical commercially
available semiconductor devices such as 4.5 kV/3 kA IGBT and 8 kV/4 kA thyristors, and device
voltage utilization of 60% for increased reliability and account for potential system over-voltages
[109]. Based on the selected parameters, it is estimated that the number of required IGBTs is 894
compared to 504 thyristors only. Further, the number of switches is effectively doubled if current
flow requirements are increased beyond a single-module capability. Thus, different combinations
result in different device count and unit cost, and these are indicative parameters for the overall
station cost. In the case of MMC converters, the increased number of balancing capacitors may also
escalate the overall station cost.

20
 In contrast, the technical feasibility of accommodating 8,000 MW DC power at a single point of an
AC grid through LCC-HVDC is challenging for many existing power grids in the world, including
Europe (e.g., for SCR = 2, the required three-phase short-circuit level at the PCC will be 16,000 MVA).
Whereas futuristic VSC-HVDC links of such rating are more capable of connecting to weak networks.
Finally, Table 3 summarizes the main comparison points between both LCC and VSC technologies in
HVDC applications.

3.1.3.1. Hybrid LCC-VSC HVDC Systems

Several recent research works are investigating a hybrid LCC & VSC operation in HVDC links. The
main objective of such schemes is to utilize the advantages of both converter technologies. For
instance, connecting LCC station at the bulk generation site to make use of its reduced cost and high
capacity, while connecting a single or multiple VSC station at the receiving side to exploit the reduced
footprint of VSC stations and to utilize their ability to support weak grids and overcome potential
commutation failure [110-112]. In such hybrid systems, bidirectional power flow is not typically
needed, and LCC terminals mostly operate in rectifier mode while VSC terminals operate as inverters.
Yet, the use of intermediate DC-DC transformers between VSC and LCC stations through hybrid
configurations such as the Active-Forced-Commutated Bridge is investigated in [113] to sustain
effective bidirectional power flow in hybrid HVDC links when the LCC voltage polarity is reversed,
with the capability of stations voltage matching.
Other hybrid VSC and LCC connections within the same converter station are discussed in
literature. The authors of [114] analysed four hybrid configurations in terms of their combined
power rating and PQ capability enhancement as compared to conventional LCC stations. Hybrid
multi-infeed systems are also investigated in [115], where parallel, independent, VSC and LCC DC
lines are connected to the same AC bus to improve its voltage stability.
At present, a number of hybrid LCC-VSC HVDC links are reported by [115] to be in the planning
phase in China. Namely, the hybrid Baihetan-Jiangsu 8,000 MW link in China, which is characterized
by a conventional LCC station at one end, and a hybrid LCC-VSC station at the other end. The 3-
terminals Wudongde-Yunnan HVDC link is another interesting hybrid link being considered for
practical implementation, utilizing an 8000 MW LCC station at the sending end to benefit from the
high LCC capacity and lower scaled cost, while using VSC stations of lower rating at the receiving
areas with 5000 MW and 3000 MW, respectively [110, 115, 116].

21
 Table 3: Comparison between HVDC transmission technology options
HVDC Converter Types LCC VSC
Mercury Arc (1950s – 1970s)
Switching Device IGBT (1990s – Present)
Thyristor (1970s – Present)
Commutation (Frequency Range) Line Dependent (50-60 Hz) Self-Commutated (up to few kHz)
Station Power Loss [15, 54, 117] 0.6%-0.8% ~ 1%
Voltage Polarity Reversal (slow, causes Current Direction Reversal (Fast, adds
Power-Flow Reversal Mechanism
more current stress) more reliability)
Dependent (expensive added
Network Strength Dependency Largely Independent
equipment in weak grids) [58]
Converter Station Footprint Larger Smaller (40-50%) [75]
None, and can support reactive power
Inherent VAR Consumption 50-60% of rated MW
to AC grid
Reactive/Filtering Equipment Requirements High (Expensive) Low
Inherent VAR control and Grid Support No Yes
Inherent AC Grid Black-Start Capability No Yes
Fault Handling AC Side Lower (Line-Frequency Dependent) Higher (MVAR Support/Black Start)
Capability DC Side Higher (DC Reactor/SC failure) Lower (High di/dt rate)
AC & DC Side Harmonics Level Higher Lower
Market Share (# of (1954-2018) 81% 19%
Projects) [27] (2010-2018) 70% 30%
2,000 MW [118]/ ±500 kV [15]
Available Rating Max 12,000 MW/ ±1,100 KV
(525 kV [119]*)
Combinations*
Average 2,000 MW/ ±400 kV 580 MW/ ±220 kV

Common Applications High-Power, Long Distance Offshore/Cable-based Projects

Multi-Terminal HVDC Suitability Limited Highly Suitable
Stations Cost (at High Ratings) Lower Higher

*Current maximum VSC voltage is ±500 kV at Skagerrak 4 project [15], which will be taken over by NordLink in 2020 with ±525 KV
[119].

320

300

280
Stations Cost ($m)

260

240

220

200
VSC
180
LCC
160

140
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Rating (MW)

Figure 11: LCC and VSC stations cost evolution with rating based on actual data from [105].

22
3.1.4. Evaluation of HVDC Transmission Configurations
Both LCC and VSC links can be connected using different network configurations. The DC network
topology or configuration selection is mainly influenced by the required level of reliability, rating,
cost-effectiveness and complying with local policies and regulations [120]. Commonly used
topologies of HVDC transmission systems are DC mono-pole and DC bi-pole, while DC tri-poles are
rarely implemented and are mostly based on design variations of the other common configurations
[121]. In contrast, Back-to-Back (B2B) connections are primarily used to link unsynchronized
neighbouring AC networks. One such example is Al-Fadhili project, commissioned in 2009 to link
Saudi Arabia system to its neighbouring markets (Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain) with a total capacity of
1,800 MW [122].
Another subset of the BNEF dataset [27] consisting of 160/252 projects with available
configuration data reveals that 33% of them are configured in a B2B fashion. Signifying the important
role of this configuration in networks interconnection. Most of these B2B links are connected using
LCC converters (94% of the considered projects within the subset) compared to limited number of
VSC links since LCC stations have less power loss. Yet, several research works discuss different
efficient VSC B2B configurations and control techniques mainly based on MMC topologies [23, 123].

3.1.4.1. Monopolar Configurations

Power transfer between the two converter stations in this configuration utilizes a single DC pole
rated for full high-voltage DC capacity. The return circuit can be a low voltage return path
(asymmetrical monopole), which may be realized using an earth electrode at each station, or a low-
voltage metallic return link [124]. Earth electrodes require special design considerations to
accommodate the fully rated DC current (in kA), and are typically placed away from the converter
stations and connected using electrode lines [125, 126]. This option is cost effective and avoids the
use of return cable/conductor extending over the whole link distance. Yet, several existing
regulations/policies restrict the use of earth electrodes in many HVDC projects due to their negative
environmental impacts, especially in case of buried cables underground or subsea: potentially
causing corrosion to nearby pipes and affecting sea creatures in the latter case [126]. When used, the
metallic return link is rated for full current, but with significantly less voltage insulation
requirements compared to the HV line as it’s placed in the low voltage path. Figure 12(a) illustrates
both conventional HVDC monopole connection options, which are applicable to both LCC and VSC
projects, but more commonly used with LCC.
Another monopole configuration that equally shares the full rated HV between two positive and
negative links connecting both stations is known as symmetrical monopole (e.g. ±320 kV lines rather

23
than single 640 kV line to ground) [124]. The direct advantage in symmetrical monopole systems is
decreasing the rating of the links, which is especially important when underground/subsea cables
are used due to their currently available moderate voltage ratings compared to the overhead (OH)
lines. Figure 12(b) illustrates the symmetrical monopole configuration, where midpoint grounds are
defined at both converter stations. This configuration is common for offshore VSC applications. On
the other hand, it is rarely implemented in case of LCC, with the NorNed link as an exception, where
each station has a single 12-pulse converter configured to produce opposite transmission polarities
[127].
The main disadvantage of the discussed monopole configurations remains in that there is no
inherent redundancy in the design, meaning that when there is a fault in one of the lines or
converters, then the full transmission capacity is lost [128].

3.1.4.2. Bipolar Configurations

This configuration is the most widely used in HVDC transmission as it commonly provides
increased reliability. Figure 12(c) illustrates a high-level block diagram of bipolar configuration
alternatives, where each station contains two converters grounded at midpoint. These converters
produce equal and opposite HV outputs, creating a normal energy flow path at the outer loop with
negligible flow in the neutral/earth connection. The mid-point emergency return path can be
designed using either earth electrodes or metallic return link, similar to the monopole case.
The main advantage of common bipolar configurations is the increased reliability, which is
analogous to a double-circuit AC transmission line. That is, a fault on any single transmission
line/cable or converter pole causes only that link to independently shut down. In this scenario,
provided that the fault does not affect the other pole assets, the neutral link is used as a low voltage
return path allowing for continued operation up to 50% of the total HVDC power capacity [21, 67].
The inherent voltage reduction discussed for symmetrical monopoles is also a key parameter for
bipolar links to increase their power transfer capability.
On the other hand, the rigid bipolar configuration is sometimes used for long distance
transmission. In this configuration, no return electrode (for environmental compliance) or return
conductor (for economic consideration) are used. Indicating a 100% power loss in case of a single
cable fault, or a 50% power loss in case of single-pole converter fault with proper current re-routing
[129].
Collectively, 53% of considered dataset projects utilize bipolar links (79% without Back-to-Back
projects). Figure 13 summarizes the share of each HVDC configuration in the HVDC market based on
a 160 project subset from the BNEF data [27].

24
 (a)

(b)

(C)

Figure 12: Common HVDC transmission configurations: (a) Monopole with both metallic and earth electrode
return options. (b) symmetrical monopole. (c) Bipole with both return options. (two return options are
presented in (a) and (c) for illustration, actual implementations use only one).
Total Subset

33% 14% 53%

Based on data from 160 Projects

Excluding B2B

21% 79%

Transmission-Based Projects

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Back-to-Back Monopolar Bipolar

Figure 13: Market share of the main HVDC configurations, including and excluding Back-to-Back links, based
on data from 160 projects [27].

25
3.2. Converter Transformers
Design requirements for HVDC converter transformers are different from that of AC power
transformers. HVDC Converter transformers are needed to match the AC grid voltage to the converter
AC voltage which is largely linked to the rated DC link voltage. Transformers also isolate the
converters from the connected AC networks. They contribute to reducing the short-circuit current as
their coils limit the fault-current rate of change. The leakage reactance of converter transformers is
generally higher than that of AC power transformers. A leakage reactance of 0.1 p.u. is attractive
economically and limits the reactive power losses which affect the converter P-Q capability, but fault
considerations necessitate a modest increase, ranging practically from 0.15 p.u. to 0.18 p.u. [61, 130,
131].
Compared to conventional transmission transformers, a converter transformer is designed to
withstand DC and AC stresses; thus, increasing its insulation requirements and size. The DC stress is
significantly more in LCC than the VSC case, although some conventional VSC design alternatives also
exhibit high levels of DC stress [13].
Transformers in 12-pulse LCC converters are connected in Y-Y, Y-Δ configuration (Figure 9b) in
order to mitigate the system generated low order harmonics, especially the 5 th and 7th components,
and suppress their propagation to the AC network [130].
Converter transformers in both VSC and LCC stations typically utilize automatic On-Load-Tap-
Changers (OLTCs) to regulate grid and converter voltages within allowable tolerance limits [132,
133]. OLTCs are operated to maintain constant DC side voltages by correspondingly fixing the
converter interfacing AC voltage to mitigate commutation failures [62, 134].
In terms of physical transformer connections and used types in HVDC transmission, then the main
connection configurations for converter transformers are: i) single-phase, three-winding. ii) three-
phase, three-winding. iii) single-phase, two-winding. iv) three-phase, two-winding. A major selection
criterion for the transformer type is its rating as it directly affects the size and ease of transportation.
Highly rated transformers for high power applications are physically enormous, making it
impractical to transport them to site. Instead, option (iii) is more commonly used in HVDC
applications as it is easier to transport, where transformers are connected in three-phase
arrangements at the station, while maintaining adequate phase-balancing. This makes it easier to add
spare transformers on site at a reasonable cost for increased system reliability [13, 135].
The practicality of this option is evident at Ultra-HVDC ratings, where up to 24 single-phase
transformers are needed per station (two 12-pulse LCC converters are connected in series per pole
to withstand the ratings, with each requiring six single-phase, two-winding units). Additional 4

26
transformers are typically added as spare parts in similar cases [61]. Figure 14 compares options (ii)
and (iii) for a 6-pulse station for illustration, while presenting the scaled size of a UHVDC 800-kV
transformer from ABB for context [13]. As discussed earlier, the current maximum available
converter transformers unit rating is 1,100 kV from ABB & Siemens.

3-Phase, 3-Windings

DC Transmission
Transformer Unit

Very large: Difficult

to transport

800 kV UHVDC Transformer

from ABB (Single-Phase Unit)
for illustrative size comparison.

DC Transmission

Individual single-phase transformers:

Easier to transport and add spare units

Figure 14: Comparison between common converter transformer installation options (single-phase vs. three-
phase units).

3.3. Transmission Assets

HVDC transmission types are classified into overhead (OH) conductors and underground
(UG)/subsea cables. The use of a specific type per project is dependent on the HVDC link terrain, and
influenced by adopted policies and regulations.
3.3.1. HVDC Conductors/Cables Overview
Overhead HVDC transmission is well-established at very high ratings for long distances with
several commissioned and operational ±800 kV links, especially in China and India. The first ±800
kV/6,400 MW link was built in 2010, linking the Chinese Xiangjiaba-Shanghai regions at a distance
exceeding 1,900 km.
On the other hand, cable-based HVDC links are mainly used for offshore markets interconnection
and wind-farms grid integration. Cable based transmission is typically adopted at considerably
shorter distances compared to OH conductors in HVDC projects as the breakeven distance described

27
by Figure 1(a) is much shorter for DC cables due to the excessive required reactive compensation
with AC cables [136]. Having said that, the maximum ratings achievable by cable-based HVDC links
so far are currently limited to 2,200 MW/600 kV (Western HVDC Link) between Scotland and North
Wales, utilizing LCC technology with Mass-Impregnated (MI) cables [137-139]. The longest cable-
based project to date is NorNed at 580 km. This record is set to be broken by the upcoming Nord Link
(623 km in 2020), Viking Link (770 km in 2020) and NSN Link (730 km in 2021) projects, all linking
Northern European countries through submarine cables [140, 141].
Although converter technology and ratings are essentially the same for both OH and cable
transmission options, there is a clear gap between the maximum available ratings for the two options
as illustrated by Figure 15 [142]. It should be noted that the use of UG cables is sometimes adopted
over cheaper OH alternatives to comply with local regulations or public concern about the visual
impact of OH lines especially when increasing the link power capability is not an essential design
parameter. One example is the SydVästlänken (South-West) link between Norway and Sweden, rated
at 1,200 MW and consisting mainly of UG cable sections to minimize its environmental impact on the
surrounding areas [143]. Cables are also not exposed to transient faults induced by lightning or
ambient environment condition as compared to OH lines, thus providing more operational reliability
[144].

Limited cables voltage capability

Limited link voltage & increased Increased cost/losses & limited
with high power transmission
number of cables per pole economic viability
requirement

Figure 15: Qualitative summary of the limited power transfer capacity of DC cables.

Another subset of 134/252 projects with transmission distance breakdown from BNEF data is
used to analyse the level of adoption of each transmission method. [27]. These projects are classified
into OH, UG and Subsea. A project is classified in this work into one of these categories if it dominates
the overall link distance by more than 70%. Otherwise, the transmission project is categorized as
mixed. For instance, it is found that 96% of the covered projects in Asia (mainly China and India) are
dominated by OH conductors, which is justified by the transmission terrain and the required long
transmission distance.
Figure 16(a) summarizes the global classification of the considered subset of projects based on
transmission type, where mixed projects worldwide typically consist of more UG component
compared to OH. Figure 16(b) also summarizes the average project length, voltage and power ratings
for each HVDC transmission technology type based on the same data subset.

28
 Two main types of HVDC cables are used in market: i) Mass-Impregnated (MI) and ii) Extruded
Cables (XLPE). These two types are compared in the next subsection as they are suitable for different
technologies with different development paces.

4000
3,430
3500

3000
18.7% 25.4% 2500

2000
4.5%
1500
1,023 980
1000 710
51.5% 530
500 143 240 250 310

0
Length (km) DC Volt (kV) Rating (MW)

Subsea Underground Overhead Mixed OH UG Cables Subsea Cables

(a) (b)

Figure 16: HVDC market share of different transmission types: (a) technology adoption distribution. (b)
Average ratings/length per type. Raw data source: [27].

3.3.2. HVDC Cables Comparison

Mass-Impregnated (MI) cables were used in HVDC transmission systems as far back as the 1st
commercial HVDC project in Gotland, Sweden in 1954 at 100 kV [13]. Their insulation system is based
on lapped paper tapes that are impregnated with a viscous, oily, compound [38, 145]. This cable
technology is well-proven and operationally compatible with both VSC and LCC converters which
means it continues to be used in many submarine HVDC projects up to the highest available rating in
the Western HVDC link [137].
However, another competitive technology has been receiving a major research focus to provide
more sustainable and flexible alternative to the existing MI cables technology. Extruded DC cables
technology was first applied in HVDC transmission systems in 1999, notably, at the same location of
its MI competitor in Gotland, Sweden at 80 kV rating [13, 146, 147]. The insulation material in
extruded HVDC cables is based on cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE), hence they are typically referred
to as XLPE cables [38]. Their main advantages compared to MI cables are: i) Low weight and design
flexibility, leading to easier transport and site installation. ii) More mechanical robustness. iii) Faster
manufacturing process. iv) Environmentally friendly with no oil leaks and use of recyclable materials
[16]. A more comprehensive technical comparison between the different HVDC cables technologies
is found in [38].

29
 XLPE cables are used primarily in VSC-HVDC links, as they are prone to failure due to the excessive
DC stress from the power flow reversal when used in LCC-HVDC links. Despite this, a few exceptions
exist where cables are designed with high DC breakdown strength to accommodate voltage polarity
reversal, as in the Japanese Hokkaido-Honshu HVDC link [146, 148]. The development in XLPE cables
market share is thus dependent on the increasing VSC market share. Figure 17(a) summarizes the MI
and XLPE DC Cables market development overtime based on EuropaCable data [149]. It is expected
that XLPE cables will soon have a dominant share of the HVDC market. Figure 17(b) compares the
cost of MI and XLPE cables at similar ratings (without installation cost), and indicates a reasonable
gap (by 2015) that may be justified economically in some cases based on the easier XLPE cables
installation [105].
Currently, the maximum implemented and operational rating of a project using XLPE cables is
2,000 MW/±320 kV at the INELFE link (2x1,000 MW parallel links) [27, 118, 150]. The NEMO
Interconnector, commissioned in 2019, operates at ±400 kV in a symmetrical monopole
configuration, utilizing XLPE submarine cables manufactured by JPS Japan [151]. Further advances
are expected with next generation 525 kV XLPE cables already announced by ABB [39], and 640 kV
cable prototypes recently tested and announced by NKT [147]. Other notable DC cable manufacturers
with ongoing progress are Nexans, Prysmian, Furukawa and LS Cables. Table 4 summarizes the
comparison points between MI and XLPE cables for HVDC applications.
On the other hand, superconducting cables are theorized as a potential competitor in HVDC
transmission as their technology provides significant advantages compared to existing options in
terms of reduced size and losses. They also provide increased power transmission capacity that could
match OH options in efficiency. However, the technology is still very expensive for long-distance
implementation with limited availability and requires extensive additional research and validation
[152, 153].
Table 4: Comparison between XLPE and MI DC cables technology.
Cable Type Mass Impregnated (MI) Extruded (XLPE)
Insulation Type Paper insulated/Oil filled Polymer (cross-lined polyethylene)
First Use for HVDC 1954 1999
Mainly VSC
HVDC Applications LCC & VSC
(limited suitability for LCC due to voltage reversal)*
Mechanical Weight/Installation Higher/Harder Lower/Easier
Maximum Rating 2,200 MW/±600 kV 2,000 MW/±320 kV**
(Project-Based) (Western Link) [137] (INELFE) [118]
Longest Distance 580 km (NorNed) [127] 400 km (NordBalt) [147]
* Special types of XLPE cables are rarely used in LCC projects (e.g. the ±250 kV Hokkaido-Honshu link in Japan) [146, 148].
** NEMO Interconnector commissioned in 2019 uses 400 kV XLPE cables manufactured by JPS of Japan [151]. ABB has also recently
manufactured 525 kV XLPE cables that should be soon in service [39].

30
 8,000
1.25
7,000 1367
1.15
Cables Addition Per Decade (km)

6,000 A total of ~1150 km MI Voltage Ratings:

1.05

58%
Submarine cables were MI (400-500 kV)
laid before 1980 XLPE (320-400 kV)
5,000 0.95
3075

$m/km
4,000 0.85
467
3,000 250 0.75
1025
50 0.65
2,000
2958 0.55
1,000 567 2225
833 917 0.45
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000
1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's Rating (MW)
MI Submarine MI Land XLPE Submarine XLPE Land MI Avg XLPE Avg

(a) (b)

Figure 17: XLPE and MI cables comparison: (a) DC cables length up to 2020 [149]. (b) average costs
comparison of ~400 kV cables at different ratings, excluding installation which is easier/cheaper for XLPE
cables [105].

3.4. HVDC Controllers

The reliability and complexity of HVDC power flow control systems vary based on the technology
used (LCC or VSC) and the connected AC network conditions (strong or weak), in addition to the DC
network topology (point-to-point or multi-terminal). This section briefly summarizes the main
adopted techniques in controlling HVDC stations, including special considerations for weak AC grids.
A detailed control review is out of the scope of this work. Relevant detailed references are provided
where needed in the following subsections.

3.4.1. Control of LCC-HVDC Transmission

Typical control structures in LCC-HVDC transmission assign different tasks for each station in
point-to-point links. The specific control architecture varies depending on the operating conditions
(e.g. AC networks strength). The thyristors firing angle is the only controller output that could be
manipulated at both ends to control the DC power and voltage. A converter station that operates in
rectifier mode (sending-end) typically regulates the DC link current or power, whereas the converter
station that operates in inverter mode (receiving-end) tends to regulate the DC link voltage directly
or indirectly by controlling the thyristors’ extinction angle within a narrow range in an effort to
minimize reactive power consumption and risk of CF [46, 56]. The described control configuration is
recommended when LCCs are connected to weak AC grids. A combination of PI controllers and Phase-
Locked-Loops (PLLs) are typically used to achieve the reference set-points of the controlled variables
while the OLTC of converter transformers can also participate in the voltage control action [154,
155]. In contrast, the inverter DC current control mode is normally invoked during AC and DC short

31
circuit faults [46]. That is, switching between different control operating modes should be
permissible by the control architecture.
Operating LCC-HVDC in weak AC grids requires special measures to mitigate the risk of
commutation failure. For example, FACTS devices such SVC and STATCOM have been employed in a
number of links to improve system stability and facilitate the control operation. Examples include
the Baltic Cable link between Germany and Sweden, the IFA Cross-Channel link between the UK and
France, and the Western link project within the UK [46, 139]. Finally, more detailed insights of LCC-
HVDC control structures can be accessed from [46, 57, 62, 64].

3.4.2. Control of VSC-HVDC Transmission

VSC-HVDC systems are superior in terms of providing independent control of active and reactive
powers, and their suitability for integration into weak AC grids. Vector control is the most used and
straightforward method to manipulate the two control variables, i.e., magnitude and phase angle of
the fundamental voltage generated by a VSC at its AC terminals by controlling the IGBTs gating
signals. This is done to achieve the desired system level set-points [46]. Unlike LCCs, power flow
direction does not dictate the converter station control mode and terms rectifier and inverter do not
have physical influence apart from convention in some parts of the literature. However, the control
objectives of both stations must be consistent from the point of view of power balance. As an example,
in a point-to-point VSC-HVDC link, one of the converter stations must define a strict DC voltage level
to facilitate correct operation and the other converter station must define the basis in which the real
power is to be dispatched. With both stations having additional control degrees of freedom that could
be used to control reactive power or AC voltage. Besides vector control, there are other methods in
literature to control VSC-HVDC systems [156, 157].
Unlike LCC-HVDC, the use of self-commutated switching devices that can switch several times per
fundamental period enables techniques such as pulse width modulation (PWM) to be employed with
VSC-HVDC system. This permits the system to be seen conceptually as a true current controlled
voltage source, capable of injecting limited and controlled active and reactive currents during
symmetrical and asymmetrical AC faults to support AC networks. However, ensuring stable
operation of VSCs in weak AC grids requires advanced PLLs or alternative control implementations
such as the power synchronization method, etc., [46, 158-160]. It is worth underscoring that for the
MMC type VSC-HVDC links, more controllers for managing internal dynamics will be required, but
such aspects are beyond the scope of this paper.
Philosophically, the control of VSC-based Multi-Terminal HVDC networks could be seen as
simple extension of point-to-point HVDC link, and it is an evolving topic that continues to attract

32
research attention. Master-slave, DC voltage margins and many types of linear and nonlinear droop
controls are just a few examples of methods proposed for ensuring satisfactory operation of multi-
terminal HVDC networks during normal and abnormal conditions [161-163].

3.5. HVDC Networks Protection

LCC and VSC based HVDC transmission require different protection systems that vary between
point-to-point and multi-terminal HVDC links. For instance, the inherent LCC characteristic of
unidirectional DC current with highly inductive DC link greatly restrains the rate-of-rise of DC fault
current. In addition, the use of switching devices with bipolar voltage blocking capability is
advantageous in terms of increasing the system immunity to DC fault current. Several fault-detection
techniques for point-to-point LCC converters are presented in literature, discussing fault isolation
algorithms and limiting potential thyristor commutation failures following a fault condition [164-
166].
On the other hand, the bidirectional DC current of VSCs, and its adoption of switching devices with
unidirectional voltage capability, in addition to increased DC fault level due to the large transient
fault current from the energy intensive DC-Link capacitors discharge, exacerbate the vulnerability of
VSC to DC faults [167]. That is, the DC side in VSC-HVDC is prone to abrupt and very high rates of
fault current rise. This fact influences the transmission type selection as the majority of existing VSC
projects either use Back-to-Back configuration or cables transmission since overhead lines are
exposed to more short-term DC faults (e.g. due to lightning) [168]. The use of DC superconducting
fault-current limiters (SFCL) within VSC-HVDC transmission is suggested in the literature to mitigate
this issue [169-172]. HVDC protection is thus dependent on a combination of circuit breakers and
converters fault blocking operation. The development status and main trends in HVDC protection are
discussed here.
3.5.1. AC Circuit Breakers in HVDC Transmission
AC Circuit Breaker (ACCB) technology is well-developed and available at very-high ratings using
gas-insulated switchgears to accommodate different needs, up to 1,100 kV - 1,200 kV [173]. The
operation of ACCB depends on fault-current interruption at the natural cyclic zero-crossing point of
the AC current (Figure 8), typical response time is 2-3 cycles (i.e. 40-60 ms in a 50-Hz network) [168,
174]. A tripping time of this magnitude is acceptable in most AC networks as the fault current rate of
change is limited by the inherent inductance of the AC transmission lines, but poses serious
challenges for multi-terminal HVDC networks.
AC breakers are widely used in point-to-point HVDC protection due to their low cost and reliability
[175, 176]. Different control algorithm and fault-handling techniques are used to coordinate their

33
operation with other protective equipment (e.g. in MMC implementation) [177]. Protective device
coordination is used in VSC stations to limit the contribution of the AC network to DC fault level by
opening AC breakers, since inverse-parallel diodes connected to IGBT modules conduct during fault
[178]. In contrast, utilizing AC side breakers for blocking DC faults typically results in a complete
shutdown of the fault-side converter station until normal connection conditions are restored. This
leads to a temporary loss of the ancillary AC grid support services that could be provided by VSC-
HVDC stations (i.e. voltage support) [178, 179].

3.5.2. DC Circuit Breakers

Failing to rapidly isolate a DC faulty line in MTDC networks can lead to a fast fault propagation
through the healthy network assets, causing unnecessary tripping and outages. The rate of DC fault
current increase in VSC-HVDC is particularly rapid due to the low DC network impedance and the
lack of inherent current limiting reactance as in LCC-HVDC [180, 181]. DC breakers thus have an
average tripping time requirement of 3-ms to 10-ms [44, 182]. This requirement is summarized by
Figure 18a, whereas Figure 18b illustrates a DC grid fault scenario. The DCCBs connected to the faulty
line should trip fast enough to prevent fault propagation.

VSC based DC networks have low Very fast acting DCCBs are
DC Fault current increases rapidly
impedance (lacking current rise required to isolate faulty DC lines
to the fault point
limiting inductance) and protect healthy assets

(a)

AC Grid AC DC Meshed DC DC AC AC Grid

Area A Station Network Station Area C

DC Fault
AC Grid AC DC DC AC Offshore
Area B Station Station Wind

(b)
Figure 18: (a) Qualitative description of the rapid fault current increase rate in DC networks and the resulting
fast DCCB tripping requirements. (b) Illustrative DC grid fault scenario

There are a limited number of operational, small-scale, VSC-MTDC networks already implemented
as real-life case studies to test different protection scenarios. The main example is the Zhoushan DC
grid in China, consisting of 5 interconnected VSC stations at ±200 kV [44]. Different protection
scenarios including the use of DCCB technology for this DC grid are discussed in [97, 183]. Several

34
manufacturers are actively testing DCCB prototypes and recent sources indicate successful
implementation of 200 kV hybrid DC breakers [44, 184], with potential technology development up
to 500 kV. The fault blocking capability of new converter station technologies (i.e. MMC based VSC)
can also play significant, cost-effective role in DC networks protection in coordination with DCCB
devices [78, 93]. The development of reliable high voltage DC circuit breakers (DCCB) has been the
subject of extensive R&D activities to overcome existing protection limitations. That is, one of the
main prospects of MTDC network protection today suggests the use of non-fault blocking converters
such as half-bridge MMC plus fast acting DCCB and selective protection strategies to isolate the
faulted line.
The DCCB technology solutions used by ABB and Alstom are discussed and compared in [185],
while highly-rated GEIRI breakers are introduced in [44]. The hybrid technology used by different
manufacturers is based on a combination of solid-state semiconductor electronic devices (thyristors
and IGBT) and fast mechanical switches/disconnections. The basic structure of hybrid DCCB systems
is similar, consisting of: i) low-losses normal flow branch. ii) main circuit breaker branch (MCB). iii)
Absorption branch utilizing surge-arrestors. DC breaker designs should consider bi-directional fault-
current blocking capability in VSC systems to accommodate current reversal when changing power-
flow direction [186]. Figure 19 summarizes the operational sequence of ABBs [187] hybrid DCCB
design [187].
Different hybrid DCCB design variations have also been proposed in literature (e.g. replacing the
current-limiting inductor with a superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) [184]). Further, less-
commonly adopted, DCCB operation techniques are discussed in [186].
Due to the breaker control complexity and the large number of required semiconductor switches,
the DCCB cost is significantly higher than ACCBs [179]. Further research and development efforts are
required to increase the available DCCB ratings at a reasonable cost to ignite the reliable adoption of
MTDC networks. Finally, the current status and requirements for DCCB development are summarized
by Table 5.

35
 Figure 19: Operating principle of ABB DC Circuit Breaker.

Table 5: DCCB progress summary and development status.

Parameter Status
Main Application Multi-Terminal VSC Based DC Networks (MTDC)
Common Technology Hybrid Breakers (Mechanical Disconnectors & Solid State Devices)
Supplier ABB Alstom GEIRI
Available Prototype
Voltage (kV) 80 130 200
Ratings [44]*
Trip Time (ms) 5 5.5 3
* The given data is based on publically available documentation and announcements. Newer prototypes with higher ratings up to 200-
500 kV may also be under development by lead technology manufacturers.

3.6. HVDC Technologies – Case Studies

Understanding the capabilities and key differences between transmission technology alternatives
is essential for system designers to make proper selections while efficiently meeting the transmission
capacity and system criteria. The following case studies for two transmission projects discuss the
technologies used and the rationale behind their selection, in light of the previously presented
comparisons between HVDC and HVAC and between the HVDC technology alternatives, to provide
the reader with practical context from real-life projects.

3.6.1. Case Study 1: INELFE France-Spain HVDC Interconnector (VSC)

Interconexión Eléctrica Francia-España (INELFE) is an HVDC interconnector that was
commissioned in 2015 between France and Spain [38, 39, 188]. This France-Spain link is rated at
2,000 MW/±320 kV (consisting of two parallel 1,000 MW lines) and extends over 64.5 km between
Baixas town in France and Santa Llogaia in Spain.

36
 HVAC vs. HVDC: At a distance of 64.5 km, overhead AC transmission would have been a more
economic option. However, the increasing social opposition for constructing overhead transmission
lines in Europe and the consequent debates limited the transmission options for INELFE to
underground cables. HVDC thus became the more reasonable techno-economic solution as 64.5 km
falls within the HVAC vs. HVDC breakeven distance range [118].

Converter Stations (LCC vs. VSC): A preliminary study was conducted to determine the most
suitable technology for the link. Automatic control of reactive power exchange was a design
requirement as some power contingency incidents were recorded near the border area. Thus, the
new link was required to be capable of supplying up to 30% of its MW rating as reactive power to the
connected areas [118, 189]. Moreover, the connected AC grids had a low short-circuit ratio, which
made it more challenging to select LCC. As a result, VSC technology was adopted due to its
independent real/reactive power flow, grid support capabilities and fast power-flow reversal by
changing current direction, which is preferable in bidirectional, cross-border, energy trading links
[189].

VSC Technology Selection: From the available VSC options, Half-Bridge based MMC technology
was selected due to its positive effect on dynamic performance and AC harmonics elimination. The
number of modular levels was set to 401 [190, 191]. This way, Siemens was able to effectively
generate pure sinusoidal voltages at the converters AC interfacing points, effectively eliminating
harmonics. The selected connection configuration was symmetrical monopole, in order to use DC
cables at half the pole-to-pole voltage and maximize the transmitted power. Two parallel
symmetrical monopoles were constructed (2x1000 MW) to accommodate the design power flow
requirement with moderate available VSC power/voltage ratings, and to increase redundancy (i.e. in
case one link is temporarily lost, the other would operate normally at 1,000 MW/±320 kV, in a similar
fashion to bipolar configurations) [118].

Transmission Cables: The use of XLPE cables from Prysmian was possible due to the adoption of
VSC technology for the project. At the project awarding time in 2010, the maximum available XLPE
cables rating was ±320 kV. The use of such cables in INELFE was the first in any HVDC project, with
a power rating of 500 MW for each HV cable [39, 188].

Collectively, it can be observed from this case study how the technology selection and the number
of converters/cables can sometimes be adapted to the available technology limits while maintaining
the high-level requirements in terms of power transfer and grid support. Finally, the budget for
constructing the INELFE France-Spain link was estimated at 700 million euros [188].

37
3.6.2. Case Study 2: Western HVDC Link in UK (LCC)
The Western HVDC link was constructed to expand the transmission capacity between Scotland
and England/Wales. The link was required to achieve a rating of 2,200 MW at a total estimated budget
of 1 billion Pounds Sterling. The link voltage rating was set to ±600 kV, spanning over ~420 km,
including 385 km submarine cable sections [139, 192]. The project was initially planned to be
commissioned by 2015. Consequent delays led to a partial inauguration of 900 MW transmission
capacity in 2017, with the full capacity planned to come into operation by the end of 2018 [192, 193].

HVAC vs. HVDC: Both transmission options were initially considered for the planned Western link.
However, overhead and onshore cable options were discarded based on potential land disruption,
high visual impacts and the excessive planning/consents time. Clearly, an offshore connection of
~400 km is well beyond the HVAC vs. HVDC breakeven distance and thus HVDC was selected [139].

Converter Stations (LCC vs. VSC): Although VSC technology provides far more technical
advantages when compared to LCC as described throughout this work, the initial project proposals
between 2009 and 2012 concluded that LCC is more suitable for the Western link. The fairly strong
networks with high SCRs at both sending and receiving ends contributed to this decision, in contrast
to the INELFE interconnector case [139]. Furthermore, the planned high-voltage transmission at
±600 kV was more suitable with LCC stations given their track record at higher voltages, although
additional reactive-power support equipment (e.g. SVC) and large, switched, harmonic filters were
required. A preliminary cost-based comparison between VSC and LCC for the project is presented in
[193], attributing more cost uncertainty to VSC although it was within a comparable range to that
reported for LCC. However, the financing report concluded that LCC was the only technology at the
time to be commercially available for the requested capacity. Rigid Bipolar configuration with 12-
pulse converters was adopted for the link, with no emergency current return path to avoid additional
long conductor cost, and to comply with environmental requirements in case of the earth electrode
return path option [129, 154].

Transmission Cables: Given the adoption of LCC, Mass Impregnated cables were used to connect
both stations due to their availability at higher ratings up to 600 kV, unlike XLPE technology that was
commercially limited to 320 kV at the time. Furthermore, the risk of excessive DC stress and breakage
of XLPE cables with LCC under voltage polarity and power-flow reversal conditions rendered the
option incompatible as this link required bi-direction flow capability.

38
3.6.3. Case Studies Comparison
Comparing both studied links, one can notice the similarity in their power ratings (2 GW and 2.2
GW), in addition to the similar projects announcement timeframe (early 2010s). However, each was
implemented using different station and cable technologies. While the available XLPE cables rating
was limited to ±320 kV at the beginning of this decade, INELFE utilized symmetrical monopoles with
double VSC stations to accommodate required 2 GW power transfer through the link using VSC/XLPE
combination.
One can argue that a similar technique could have been used at the Western UK link with VSC
stations and XLPE cables, which would have facilitated a more convenient integration of the link
assets to any planned Multi-Terminal DC network in future. [193]Though, it was eventually deemed
more appropriate by network planners to resort to the well-developed LCC technology, considering
the strong network conditions at both transmission ends. Although future nuclear shutdowns at the
Scottish end may negatively affect the network strength, leading to further investment in
synchronous compensators. The presented analysis demonstrate the role that the risk factor plays in
technology selection, especially for projects rated at the VSC-LCC technology boundary limits. Which
require deeper feasibility investigation to evaluate the available options on technical, economic and
operational basis.
Finally, in terms of reliability, both projects have been operational for only a short time and thus
benchmarking their failure history is improper. Having said that, both links mainly utilize
underground/subsea cables for transmission, and it is noted by analysing data from CIGRE reliability
reports [194, 195] that cable-based projects have an average forced annual unavailability time due
to outages and failures of around 3.52%. Though, the adoption of rigid bipolar configuration in
Western HVDC link is likely to decrease its reliability further when compared to the double
symmetrical monopoles in INELFE project because the power transfer of a rigid bipolar link is totally
lost in case of a permanent single cable fault.

4. HVDC Transmission Challenges

This section briefly summarizes the main challenges for the HVDC system components discussed
earlier, and then discusses more comprehensively some system-level implementation and
operational challenges. A relevant case study to these challenges is then presented.
4.1. Component Level Challenges
The previous section introduced a comprehensive component-level assessment for the state-of-
the-art of different HVDC system components, including some of their limitations. For instance,
technical boundaries of LCC converters when compared to VSC are evident in terms of their excessive

39
reactive power consumption requirement, in addition to their lack of inherent grid support
capability, which is especially important in weak AC grids. Hybrid HVDC systems and the use of
peripheral devices, mostly controlled by VSC based power electronics, is introduced in literature and
implemented by various projects to overcome such limitations. LCC stations are also ill-suited to
MTDC networks mainly due to the requirement of reversing their DC terminal voltage for each
power-flow reversal.
In contrast, the main presented challenges for VSC are relevant to the technology development
pace in terms of the current moderately available ratings and higher costs of VSC stations when
compared to LCC. In addition to the lack of high-voltage DCCBs, which technically limits the
implementation of VSC based MTDC grids.
The main challenges related to transmission assets can be classified as technical and legislative.
Cable ratings are commercially limited to 600 kV in today’s market. While overhead transmission,
although cheaper and available at higher ratings, is more prone to short-term faults and is facing
increasing opposition from the public in densely populated areas due to its visual and environmental
impacts.

4.2. System Level Challenges

High-level system challenges are mainly related to the operation of HVDC networks from
regulatory and economic points of view, in addition to addressing the feasibility question of investing
in such high-voltage transmission projects compared to other alternatives.

4.2.1. DC Networks Technical Standardization

This point is becoming increasingly important as reliable MTDC implementation has not only
become a question of technology readiness, rather, a regulatory one as well. For instance, the
anticipated high demand on MTDC networks makes it important to develop compatible DC grid codes
and standards, because point-to-point links with different voltage levels (e.g. ±150 kV and ±320 kV)
are already implemented and could be interconnected as part of future planning. Thus requiring the
use of DC-DC transformers to integrate such systems operating at different voltage levels into a single
interconnected DC grid. Some ideas and converter designs with interesting fault-blocking capabilities
are already emerging in literature [78, 196]. More importantly, International institutes such as IEEE
and CIGRE are establishing the process of developing the required standards [197, 198]. Although
these are non-binding standards, they serve as an incentive to Transmission System Operators
(TSOs) and regulatory bodies to take similar steps. Common standards also facilitate the
interoperability of multi-vendor converters (i.e. compatibility between different converter
topologies supplied by different manufacturers, which is critically important to maintain market

40
competition). Finally, different aspects of HVDC grid code requirements, implementation suggestions
and a summary of relevant social/political challenges are presented in [15].

4.2.2. DC Networks (SuperGrid) Operation

The “SuperGrid” concept aims to interconnect different AC electricity networks. Such schemes
increase the security of supply of the individual interconnected networks and facilitate the
interfacing of large-scale renewable energy sources directly to the DC networks [199].
However, the emergence of DC grids requires extensive planning and coordination between
different network operators, especially when they are operated across different countries. That is,
questions of cost-benefit optimization and network ownership would arise in such a scenario, in
addition to the willingness of neighbouring markets to participate in setting new energy policies and
to change their investment plans. For instance, it is estimated that investments of up to 600 billion
euros may be required for an interregional European grid infrastructure. Whereas large French
investments in nuclear power are recently reported, boosting its share of the local energy mix to
~75%. As a result, heavy investments in alternative energy pathways in the short term from all
concerned bodies or governments is questionable [15].
Having said that, it is important to address that the process of constructing a cross-border DC grid
is incremental. That is, small-scale multi-terminal HVDC networks can be constructed by a single TSO
or small-clusters of TSOs. Examples of that are the North-East Agra network in India (Although
currently operated using LCC technology) [199, 200] and the North Sea offshore interconnection in
Europe [15]. The development into larger DC grids can eventually be performed through expanding
the existing point-to-point or multi-terminal networks in a gradual manner. In this case, the
participation of a large group of TSOs requires setting clear rules for network operation and
ownership to govern the energy flow between different parties [199, 201].
4.2.2.1. High-Level DC Grid Control Topologies
Several coordination methods between involved TSOs are presented in literature. Most Notably,
coordinative, independent and integrated grid control [199, 201, 202].

Coordinative DC Grid Control: In this scheme, the DC network is operated by an entity whose
policies and practices are set by the participating TSOs. This entity is in charge of the DC grid assets
including the converter stations. It handles the power flow through the MTDC system and ensures a
smooth set-point transition following unscheduled power-flow changes/ interruptions in a way that
must benefit all participating TSOs. In contrast, this entity applies incentives/penalties to the
participating TSOs following their pre-set rules and agreements. The European Network of
Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-E) organization can be thought of as such an entity [176].

41
 Independent DC Grid Control: In this case, the grid is controlled by an independent entity whose
primary goal is to maximize its operational benefits while respecting connection rules and policies of
each participating TSO. For instance, the independent entity is rewarded in this operative scenario
for providing energy reserve to imbalanced areas, whereas part of this reward is paid back to the
providing area. Having said that, designing the specific regulations to control DC grids under this
scheme is challenging as it should balance the independent operator authorities and participating
TSOs benefits.

Integrated DC Grid Control: One of the participating TSOs expands its operation in this case to add
the DC network and converter stations at other areas under its operation. This TSO, as a network
operator, could create bilateral agreements with the other TSOs to purchase services from one TSO
and sell them to another, while taking responsibility of the network assets maintenance.

The control alternatives discussed above are summarized in Figure 20. Where implementing any
of them, or possibly a combination, is dependent on the regional agreements, conditions, and
investing parties in the particular inter-regional DC grid of interest. Other coordination and control
techniques are also presented in literature, e.g. proposing distributed, shared control whereby all
connected TSOs participate in sharing primary reserve in case of power imbalance to achieve an
equilibrium operating point with unified frequency deviation [203]. Optimization techniques for
optimal power dispatch in MTDC networks are also discussed in [204] to control energy flow within
desired TSO set-points.

(a)

42
 (b)
Figure 20: Different operating schemes of DC Supergrids: (a) Independent/Coordinated; (b)
integrated

4.2.3. Utilization of High-Voltage Transmission Lines

Contemporary electricity networks integrate large-scale intermittent sources, which could
sometimes lead to congestion problems in transmission line utilization. The generated renewable
energy from wind, solar or hydro power sources is thus likely to be partially curtailed when one of
the following conditions is met: i) lack of local demand or storage at the RES generation area, or lack
of transmission infrastructure to distant load demand; ii) existence of transmission pathways that
are congested by other competing sources either at the generation or load areas. The effects of high
RES penetration on network congestion in Europe and China with case studies related to
transmission grid expansion are discussed in [205-208].
Transmission grid infrastructure and expansion is a proposed solution in many such cases. By
means of building new HVDC or HVAC transmission pathways to reduce network congestion and
curtailed energy. However, investment decisions in new expensive transmission lines is risky and
should be evaluated thoroughly in terms of the involved costs, technical and operational
considerations [176]. Cost databases, economic HVDC models and HVAC vs. HVDC investment
benchmarks are presented in literature to assist decision-makers in sizing and selecting the
appropriate transmission technology for the intended application [107, 209].
In contrast to congestion, another important point to consider when constructing new High-
Voltage lines for large-scale RES transmission is the local generation/demand trends and regulations
in the receiving areas. Namely, building new transmission pathways should typically alleviate
congestion and consequently curtailment. Yet, decreasing the energy import demand at receiving
areas by switching to local generation alternatives due to lack of proper coordination can similarly
cause renewables curtailment. A detailed case study discussing similar issues from China is

43
presented in the next subsection. It serves to clarify the importance of proper HVDC transmission
planning between the different involved parties to avoid transmission lines under-utilization.
4.2.4. Case Study: Interconnectors Utilization Challenge in China
China has a unique electricity market generation/demand distribution, with vast distances
separating its RES rich areas (concentrated in northern and western regions) and main populated
demand centres (in eastern and southern provinces). Large-scale RES plants are predominantly
hydro, wind or solar, yet the lack of matching local demand in these generation areas or high-capacity
transmission infrastructure to major population centres caused significant generation curtailment of
RES resources in early 2010s. For instance, 17% of wind energy generation (~21 TWh) was lost in
2012 [208].
In parallel, the fast demand growth in densely populated areas facilitated the construction of
several high-voltage transmission lines to utilize the excess available RES generation (see Figure 4
for the Chinese HVDC capacity expansion after 2010). As a result, RES energy curtailment was
significantly reduced down to 8% for wind by 2014. This percentage was still high compared to the
international average of wind energy curtailment, between 1% and 3% [208, 210]. Yet, the
contribution of HV interconnectors in mitigating the curtailment issue in China was evident in this
period, which is classified by [208] as the “1st curtailment wave”.
This demand growth in Chinese electricity market later decreased, reaching 0.96% by 2016 [211].
On the other hand, the approval of constructing coal power plants was decentralized in 2014,
allowing local province governments to commission new plants although the central government
trend is to reduce the coal energy dependence in the country [211]. As of 2017, nearly 70% of China’s
electricity is generated from coal plants [212]. These factors, combined with the economic
favourability of using decentralized coal plants by local governments rather than importing RES from
distant provinces, led to the following consequences:

1) Establishing a trend of coal-energy overcapacity in several provinces.

2) Reducing the reliance on imported energy from distant large-scale renewable sources.
3) Establishing a 2nd wave of increased RES generation curtailment. However, this time due to the
low demand in the receiving areas rather than the absence of transmission infrastructure.
4) Underutilization of UHV transmission links. Bloomberg estimated that average UHVDC lines
utilization in 2018 is ~56% compared to even lower utilization of UHVAC lines [213].

As a result, the RES generation curtailment climbed to 110 TWh by 2016 [214], with 49.7 TWh from
wind (rising back to 17%). Moreover, the overall lost wind energy from 2011 to 2016 approached
150 TWh. The equivalent 𝐶𝑂2 emissions to generating this lost energy from coal based plants is 0.12

44
billion tons [212]. More detailed analysis of the main factors affecting renewables curtailment are
summarized and analysed in [208], specifically for wind energy.
Several recommendations have been recently presented in literature to mitigate this problem
[208, 215-218], where Figure 21 summarizes the Chinese RES curtailment issue and the main
recommended policies for its mitigation.

Figure 21: Summary of RES curtailment problem in China and its effect on HV Interconnectors Utilization

5. HVDC Technology/Market Horizon

This section discusses the potential growth of HVDC interconnectors in light of the expected
technology development outlook, while analysing key influencing factors (e.g. demand variation and
HVDC role in achieving national RES targets).

5.1. Market Development Landscape

The generated revenue from global HVDC links has been consistently increasing. Navigant
research institute released a detailed HVDC report predicting its short-term landscape between 2013
and 2020, with average annual global HVDC interconnectors revenue exceeding 7 billion USD with a
combined annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.5% [219]. This profitable trend is expected to continue
globally in light of the anticipated technology and regulatory developments.

5.1.1. HVDC System Components Outlook

Looking further into the future, the electricity infrastructure market is conservative in nature,
meaning that even though technology prototypes may be readily developed, associated high costs
and extensive testing requirements can cause significant delays in widespread implementation [75].
In contrast, demanding market needs and the strive to achieve national/regional interconnection and
renewable targets could accelerate the development rate of new HVDC transmission technologies,

45
mainly: XLPE cables with higher voltage and power rating, and hybrid DC switchgears for Multi-
Terminal HVDC networks. In addition to accelerating the adoption of common regulatory standards.
In addition, the present generation of fault-blocking MMC-VSCs improve system resiliency to DC
faults and speed up post-fault recovery, but is unable to prevent a drop of the power transfer between
the connected AC grids to zero. Having said that, fault-blocking converters are still anticipated to play
a significant role in multi-zones DC grids that would rely on relatively low cost partially selective
protection strategies. Fault-blocking MMCs are thus undergoing extensive research and development
activities to be successfully implemented in MTDC networks.
On the other hand, the UK Electricity Ten Year Statement predicts the utilization of 650 kV XLPE
cables for 2,600 MW VSC transmission by 2030, compared to 750 kV at 3,000 MW for MI cables per
DC bipole [105], accompanied by an increase in the maximum submarine laying depth from 1,600 m
to 2,500 m over the same time interval [117]. This would pave the way for longer distance subsea
transmission. The Advisory Committee on Electrical Transmission and Distribution (ACTAD)
presented a more optimistic outlook for XLPE cables with 800 kV/2000 A predicted availability by
2030. The same source predicts an increase to the LCC-OH transmission limit from ±1,100 kV to
±1,200 kV [220].
The use of UG land cables for HVDC transmission is expected to grow, especially in Europe.
Influenced by increased public awareness to environmental and visual effects of OH transmission,
delaying the permitting process [106]. A practical case was recently observed in Germany, where
public pressure led to rerouting of the planned Suedlink energy highway to use UG XLPE cables
instead of OH transmission lines to mitigate their visual impact and environmental effects [221, 222].
Finally, Table 6 presents a summary of the forecasted component-level development horizon for
HVDC transmission.

46
 Table 6: Summary of the medium term horizon for main HVDC transmission system components.
System Component Medium-Term Technology Outlook Likely Impact

Maintaining its position as the main Pushing the maximum power transmission limit in Asia
LCC
OH UHVDC power transfer technology beyond 12,000 MW at ±1,200 kV [220]
HVDC
Converters Available at higher ratings beyond Playing vital role in MTDC development, increasing
VSC 650 kV at lower normalized costs and interconnected markets share and RES utilization
station losses [105] (expected 65% of new HVDC projects by 2020 [75])

Pushing the maximum rating limits for projects with

Higher rating availability (750 kV at
MI UG/submarine cable sections, yet with overall
3,000 MW per bipole by 2030 [105])
HVDC diminishing market share compared to XLPE

Cables Expanding its market share dominance , parallel to VSC

Higher rating availability (650 kV at
XLPE technology progress and fuelled by the need to construct
2,600 MW per bipole by 2030 [105])
new MTDC links connected to offshore wind farms

Moving from MV prototyping stage to

DCCB Accelerating DC grids implementation. Leading to
DC Grid HV implementation around 2030 [220]
increased MTDC networks share, increased security of
Protection VSC Based Enhanced control algorithms for DC
supply and enhanced RES utilization
MMC fault-blocking at higher ratings [87]

5.1.2. RES Interconnection Horizon

Interesting techno-economic studies are emerging in parallel to assess the feasibility of different
interconnection scenarios. A recent work investigated a potential 3,300 km link by 2030 between
Europe (UK) and North America (Canada) with a carrying capacity of 4,000 MW at ±640 kV. The
authors concluded that the cost of such ambitious investment could be justified by the associated
social benefits and the project high energy exchange potential [223].
The feasibility of MTDC networks implementation in Africa to support remote renewable energy
utilization and interconnection of markets by 2030 was recently discussed in [224] with an estimated
18 Billion USD of required investments for grid renovation. Authors presented MTDC networks as an
economically viable alternative to AC grid expansion. The generic role of HVDC transmission systems
as a key enabler of large-scale renewable utilization is further discussed in [225]. Linking North
Africa to Europe through MTDC networks to share the benefit of renewable energy sources (solar &
wind) and increase security of supply is also discussed in [226] with 2030 and 2050 milestones.
Interconnecting both regions is additionally discussed in various recent research articles,
highlighting the vast energy utilization prospects that could be realized through an operational DC
grid [223, 227]. Relevant to this, the authors of [228] present a potential roadmap for such African-
European interconnection using HVDC to transmit dispatchable Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
power to Europe through Italy and Spain on the medium-term as the main connection points from

47
Africa to support a future supergrid implementation. Ultimately, helping both the EU and African
countries to achieve their RES penetration targets. The following reference provides an overview on
RES targets and implementation landscape in Africa [229].
Middle-East region is also viewed as a significant energy interconnection market, especially
within the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) area that has a current generation capacity of 148 GW,
with a potential additional capacity from renewables exceeding 800 GW that can be used for energy
trading with remote neighbouring areas as part of the Global Energy Interconnection (GEI) vision.
Detailed discussion of interconnection opportunities in this region is presented in [43]. Further
analysis of point-to-point and meshed HVDC pathways between the Middle-East-North-Africa
(MENA) region and Europe to export CSP is presented in [230].
Another interesting recent study investigates the possibility of achieving 100% renewable energy
penetration in Europe by 2050, and concludes that such a scenario would require increasing the wind
generation capacity by 90% to 1.9 TW, maintaining an annual deployment level of 7.5 GW per year
compared to an annual installation requirement of 10.5 GW of solar PV. Transmission infrastructure
reinforcement would consequently be required to increase the utilization of such huge renewable
energy capacity for both wind and solar to reach distant demand areas through HVDC transmission
[231]. Similar analysis is performed for Australia in [232] with HVDC playing an active role to achieve
such ambitious targets.
Collectively, Table 7 summarizes several renewable grid penetration targets from major
international markets. HVDC links are essential to achieve these targets due to their vital role in long-
distance transmission from remote large-scale renewable sources to load centres.

Table 7: Renewable energy targets in main global markets.

Market Renewable Energy Target (E/P)* Target Year
32% (E) [233]
Europe 2030
15% (EU member states capacity interconnection) [7]
770 GW (P) [234, 235]
China 2020
(37%-39% of total capacity in 2020 [1, 235])
227 GW (P) [236]
India 2022
(48% of total capacity in 2022 [1])
Russia 4.5% (E) [237] 2024
Brazil 45% (E) [226, 238] 2030
GCC Countries 80 GW (P) [239] 2030
Africa** 50% (E) [229] 2030
New York 50% (E) [240] 2030
USA***
California 50% (E) [240] 2030
* E/P is used to distinguish (E)nergy generation from (P)ower generation capacity targets.
** This number is based on achieving individual existing national RES penetration targets by 2030 [229].
*** No nationwide target is set, yet IRENA estimates a potential of reaching 27% (E) of RES generation by 2030 with appropriate investment
in interconnection infrastructure, in addition to renewable incentives [241].

48
5.2. HVDC Growth Factors Analysis
The growth in HVDC transmission system adoption is driven by various factors that are analysed
here. As presented, the development of reliable HV technology is expected to accelerate the transition
towards DC grids adoption from a technology readiness point of view. However, it is important to
note that adequate network operation standards also need to be developed for cross-border energy
exchange in future meshed DC grids.
Long-term, long-distance transmission UHVDC demand coming mainly from Asia is another
important adoption factor, while considering the currently slow pace for commissioning new UHVDC
lines in China as discussed earlier due to ongoing under-utilization. The future growth rate is
significantly influenced by the implementation of RES support policies.
Collectively, the increased adoption of energy interconnection on a global scale and the ongoing
attempts to standardize technology are likely to drive a parallel normalized decline in technology
costs via economies of scale. This, in turn, could increase HVDC interconnection further as it becomes
more economically viable and profitable compared to other energy alternatives, in addition to the
socio-economic benefits and inherent improved supply reliability that are linked to the use of HV
networks. In such a scenario, financing new high-voltage interconnectors becomes less of a challenge
when supporting policies for reducing harmful carbon emissions and industry standardization are
implemented, especially if operation of new coal/fossil-fuel plants is gradually limited [242].
National renewable energy adoption targets are becoming a worldwide trend to battle climate
change and pollution in accordance with the 2016 Paris Agreement that was signed by 195 countries
[243, 244]. The shift towards more renewable, sustainable sources consequently drives their cost
down further. Having said that, the reliance on distributed RES is challenging in densely populated
urban areas and major demand centres because of the limited urban energy generation density. This
leads to a fast convergence to DERs physical installation network penetration limits [245].
Alternatively, large-scale RES offer a suitable economic alternative to cover the surging demand in
the receiving areas. Especially considering the large-scale RES lower normalized cost when
compared to small-scale sparse installations with equal cumulative capacity [246-248]. These large-
scale sources could be located in very distant locations from load centres based on the relevant
technology (i.e. high solar-irradiance area for PV and CSP, and high speed wind area for wind farms).
High-Power LCC overhead transmission provides the best option in land-based large scale RES
utilization, compared to VSC based XLPE submarine transmission for the growing offshore wind farm
demand. The above-mentioned trends are thus considered as the main accelerating factors in

49
increasing the adoption of HV interconnectors. Figure 22 qualitatively summarizes the main HVDC
transmission growth factors in the foreseen future.

MTDC Grids
HV Technology Implementation Increased Adoption of
Interconnection Normalized

Increased Investment Certainty and

Development Energy Interconnection

Growth of HV Transmission Links

Standards HVDC Cost
(Higher Ratings & DCCB (Security of Supply, Socio-
UHV strong push Development Declination
Deployment) Economic Benefits)
in Asia

Climate Change & Further Limited Available Reliance on Large-

More RES
Pollution Driven Economy Energy Density in Scale, Sparse RES
Installations
Environmental Policy Electrification Urban Demand Centres (PV/Wind/Hydro)

National/Regional RES RES Cost Distributed RES Increased Generation –

Targets Declination Penetration Limits Load Distance

Figure 22: HV interconnection global growth factors.

6. Conclusions
This paper presented a comprehensive overview of HVDC transmission systems, targeting readers
from various backgrounds. It provides an up-to-date summary of the HVDC technology options,
market status and supplier landscape, challenges and future trends. Furthermore, the main
components of HVDC transmission systems and technologies are reviewed, including converters,
transformers, transmission assets, control techniques and protection equipment. The main
conclusions and observations drawn from the critical reading of the literature, and the qualitative
and quantitative analysis in this paper are summarized as follows:

- LCC-HVDC dominates the market in terms of available capacity, mainly contributed by highly
rated Asian OH links. Installation costs and DC operating voltages of such systems favour the
adoption of OH-HVDC lines over MI-HVDC cables.
- VSC-HVDC transmission technology is beginning to dominate the market in projects rated at 2,000
MW or less and this is expected to continue for the foreseeable future due to its inherently
superior technical and grip-support capabilities compared to LCC-HVDC.
- The introduction of MMC type VSC-HVDC transmission systems earlier this decade has facilitated
the following for VSCs: scalability to high power and DC voltage, enhanced performance, improved
protection capabilities, lower semiconductor losses and reduced filtering requirements.
- XLPE cables market share is surpassing that of its MI competitor (58% of HVDC cables market in
2010s). This trend is dependent on VSC-HVDC development as XLPE cables are mainly compatible
with VSCs.

50
- MTDC networks are expected to play a significant role in future energy transmission networks as
they facilitate large-scale renewable energy integration and increase the security of energy
supply. However, successful MTDC implementation is dependent on:
o Developing commercial, reliable, DC protection equipment (DCCB and Fault-Blocking MMC-
VSC converters), which are likely to be widespread by 2030.
o Developing common standards and regulations to integrate existing cross-borders HVDC links
operating at different voltages into a single DC network.
- Close coordination between investing bodies in High-Voltage transmission infrastructure and end
users should be maintained when building new large-scale HVDC links, to avoid possible under-
utilization of HV transmission assets as observed recently in China.

Finally, ambitious visions for global energy interconnection are also discussed and presented as part
of the future HVDC transmission systems adoption outlook, fuelled by increased RES utilization
targets on country/regional levels.

7. Acknowledgement
This publication is supported by Iberdrola S.A. as part of its innovation department research
studies. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official views of Iberdrola Group.

8. References
[1] New Energy Outlook 2017: Global Overivew. BNEF, 2017.
[2] Sun J, Li M, Zhang Z, Xu T, He J, Wang H, et al. Renewable energy transmission by HVDC across the
continent: system challenges and opportunities. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems.
2017;3:353-64.
[3] Zhang H, Zhang S. A new strategy of HVDC operation for maximizing renewable energy
accommodation. 2017 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting2017
[4] Raza A, Dianguo X, Xunwen S, Weixing L, Williams BW. A Novel Multiterminal VSC-HVdc Transmission
Topology for Offshore Wind Farms. IEEE Trans Ind Appl. 2017;53:1316-25.
[5] Higgins P, Foley A. The evolution of offshore wind power in the United Kingdom. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev. 2014;37:599-612.
[6] Korompili A, Wu Q, Zhao H. Review of VSC HVDC connection for offshore wind power integration.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;59:1405-14.
[7] Wendt V. Europe's 2030 15% Interconnection Target: Challenges & Solutions for a Timely Project
Implementation. Vienna: EuropaCable, 2015.
[8] Tiku D. dc Power Transmission: Mercury-Arc to Thyristor HVdc Valves [History]. IEEE Power Energy
Mag. 2014;12:76-96.
[9] Rudervall R, P Charpentier J, Sharma R. High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)Transmission Systems
Technology Review Paper. Energy Week.Washington, D.C., 2000
[10] Sutton SJ, Lewin PL, Swingler SG. Review of global HVDC subsea cable projects and the application of
sea electrodes. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2017;87:121-35.
[11] Huang AQ. Power Semiconductor Devices for Smart Grid and Renewable Energy Systems. Proceedings
of the IEEE. 2017;105:2019-47.

51
[12] Shenai K. The Invention and Demonstration of the IGBT [A Look Back]. IEEE Power Electron Mag.
2015;2:12-6.
[13] Special Report: 60 years of HVDC. ABB Technial Journal. Sweden: ABB, 2011.
[14] DANIELSSON J, PATEL S, PAN J, NUQUI R. Transmission Grid Reinforcement with Embedded VSC-
HVDC. 2015 Grid of the Future Symposium.Paris 2015
[15] Pierri E, Binder O, Hemdan NGA, Kurrat M. Challenges and opportunities for a European HVDC grid.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;70:427-56.
[16] Gu X, He S, Xu Y, Yan Y, Hou S, Fu M. Partial discharge detection on 320 kV VSC-HVDC XLPE cable with
artificial defects under DC voltage. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation.
2018;25:939-46.
[17] Yuheng-Weifang 1000kV UHV AC Transmission and Transformation Project Starts Construction.
China: State Grid, 2015.
[18] Chen G, Zhou X, Chen R. Variable Frequency Transformers for Large Scale Power Systems
Interconnection: Theory and Applications: Wiley; 2018.
[19] Sood VK. 31 - HVDC Transmission. In: Rashid MH, editor. Power Electronics Handbook (Third Edition).
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2011. p. 823-49.
[20] Dynamic Reactive Compensation – MV STATCOM. ABB, 2008.
[21] Kalair A, Abas N, Khan N. Comparative study of HVAC and HVDC transmission systems. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2016;59:1653-75.
[22] Jung H, Biletskiy Y. Evaluation and comparison of economical efficiency of HVDC and AC transmission.
2009 Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering2009
[23] Liu YH, Perera LB, Arrillaga J, Watson NR. A Back to Back HVdc Link With Multilevel Current
Reinjection Converters. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2007;22:1904-9.
[24] Y.Sekine, Takahashi K, Hayashi T. Application of power electronics technologies to the 21st century’s
bulk power transmission in Japan. Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 1995;17:181 - 94.
[25] McLellan BC, Zhang Q, Utama NA, Farzaneh H, Ishihara KN. Analysis of Japan's post-Fukushima energy
strategy. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2013;2:190-8.
[26] McCalley JD, Krishnan V. A survey of transmission technologies for planning long distance bulk
transmission overlay in US. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2014;54:559-
68.
[27] [dataset] Aspinall N., Electric Transmission: HVDC and Interconnectors. BNEF, 2016.
[28] J. Lundquist LOB, A. Beutel, A.C. Britten, D.A. Douglass, J. Iglesias, V. Jankov, J.A. Jardini, D. Muftic, S.
Steevens. Guide to the Conversion of Existing AC Lines to DC Operation. Paris: CIGRE, 2014.
[29] Larruskain DM, Zamora I, Abarrategui O, Iturregi A. VSC-HVDC configurations for converting AC
distribution lines into DC lines. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems.
2014;54:589-97.
[30] Manickam R, Palaniappan SN. Upgrading transmission line capability by AC–DC conversion. Computers
& Electrical Engineering. 2018;68:616-28.
[31] Lundkvist J, Gutman I, Weimers L. Feasibility study for converting 380 kV AC lines to hybrid AC / DC
lines. EPRI's High-Voltage Direct Current & Flexible AC Transmission Systems
Conference.Westminster, CO, USA, 2009.
[32] Clerici A, Paris L, Danfors P. HVDC conversion of HVAC lines to provide substantial power upgrading.
IEEE Trans Power Del. 1991;6:324-33.
[33] Peng C, Huang AQ. Converting HVAC to HVDC grids: A novel switched conductor HVDC scheme. 2016
IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D)2016
[34] Mbuli N, Xezile R, Motsoeneng L, Ntuli M, Pretorius J-H. A literature review on capacity uprate of
transmission lines: 2008 to 2018. Electr Power Syst Res. 2019;170:215-21.
[35] Naidoo P, Estment RD, Muftic D, Ijumba N. Progress report on the investigations into the recycling of
existing HVAC power transmission circuits for higher power transfers using HVDC technology. The 8th
IEE International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission2006
[36] Lundberg P, Jacobson B, Kumar V, Kasal G-K, MS S, Kumar A. Power Convert from AC to HVDC for higher
power transmission. ABB, 2018.
[37] Yu J, Smith K, Urizarbarrena M, Bebbington M, Macleod N, Moon A. Initial designs for ANGLE-DC
project: challenges converting existing AC cable and overhead line to DC operation. CIRED - Open
Access Proceedings Journal. 2017;2017:2374-8.

52
[38] Chen G, Hao M, Xu Z, Vaughan A, Cao J, Wang H. Review of high voltage direct current cables. CSEE
Journal of Power and Energy Systems. 2015;1:9-21.
[39] Vrana TK, Energi S. Review of HVDC Component Ratings: XLPE Cables and VSC Converters. 2016 IEEE
International Energy Conference (ENERGYCON).Leuven, Belgium, 2016.
[40] Franck CM. HVDC Circuit Breakers: A Review Identifying Future Research Needs. IEEE Trans Power
Del. 2011;26:998-1007.
[41] Perez MA, Bernet S, Rodriguez J, Kouro S, Lizana R. Circuit Topologies, Modeling, Control Schemes, and
Applications of Modular Multilevel Converters. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2015;30:4-17.
[42] Debnath S, Qin J, Bahrani B, Saeedifard M, Barbosa P. Operation, Control, and Applications of the
Modular Multilevel Converter: A Review. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2015;30:37-53.
[43] Zhang X-P, Ou M, Song Y, Li X. Review of Middle East energy interconnection development. Journal of
Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy. 2017;5:917-35.
[44] An T, Tang G, Wang W. Research and application on multi-terminal and DC grids based on VSC-HVDC
technology in China. High Voltage. 2017;2:1-10.
[45] Huang D, Shu Y, Ruan J, Hu Y. Ultra High Voltage Transmission in China: Developments, Current Status
and Future Prospects. Proceedings of the IEEE. 2009;97:555-83.
[46] Khazaei J, Idowu P, Asrari A, Shafaye AB, Piyasinghe L. Review of HVDC control in weak AC grids. Electr
Power Syst Res. 2018;162:194-206.
[47] Ultra high voltage: Developments in power transformers technology. Zurich: ABB, 2017.
[48] The world’s first ±1,100 kV HVDC transformer passed testing. Munich: Siemens, 2017.
[49] Projects of Common Interest. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/infrastructure/,
2018, [accessed 02 September 2018].
[50] European solidarity on Energy: Better integration of the Iberian Peninsula into the EU energy market.
Brussels: European Commission, 2018.
[51] Liu Z, Zhang F, Yu J, Gao K, Ma W. Research on key technologies in ±1100 kV ultra-high voltage DC
transmission. High Voltage. 2018;3:279-88.
[52] M. A, P. M. A China-EU electricity transmission link: Assessment of potential connecting countries and
routes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017.
[53] Electricity interconnection France-Spain across the Bay of Biscay. INELFE, 2017.
[54] Keim T, Bindra A. Recent Advances in HVDC and UHVDC Transmission [Happenings]. IEEE Power
Electron Mag. 2017;4:12-8.
[55] Arcia-Garibaldi G, Cruz-Romero P, Gómez-Expósito A. Future power transmission: Visions,
technologies and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;94:285-301.
[56] Kundur P. Power System Stability and Control. India McGraw-Hill; 1994.
[57] HVDC for beginners and beyond Alstom Grid, 2010.
[58] Bahrman M, Bjorklund P. The New Black Start: System Restoration with Help from Voltage-Sourced
Converters. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2014;12:44-53.
[59] Li B, Liu T, Xu W, Li Q, Zhang Y, Li Y, et al. Research on technical requirements of line-commutated
converter-based high-voltage direct current participating in receiving end AC system's black start. IET
Gener Trans Dis. 2016;10:2071-8.
[60] Andersen BR, Lie X. Hybrid HVDC system for power transmission to island networks. IEEE Trans
Power Del. 2004;19:1884-90.
[61] Liu Z. Ultra-High Voltage AC/DC Grids. China: Academic Press; 2015.
[62] Mankour M, Khiat M, Ghomri L, Chaker A, Bessalah M. Modeling and real time simulation of an HVDC
inverter feeding a weak AC system based on commutation failure study. ISA Transactions.
2018;77:222-30.
[63] Illanas M. Evaluation of a new definition for a Multi-Infeed Short Circuit Ratio Stockholm: KTH Royal
Institute of Technology 2007.
[64] Zhang Y. Investigation of Reactive Power Control and Compensation for HVDC Systems. Canada: The
University of Manitoba; 2011.
[65] Wu G, Liang J, Zhou X, Li Y, Egea-Alvarez A, Li G, et al. Analysis and design of vector control for VSC-
HVDC connected to weak grids. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems. 2017;3:115-24.
[66] Yang H, Cai Z, Zhu L, Zhou B, Zhang D. A novel assessment index of LCC-HVDC system impact on short-
term voltage stability of the receiving-end AC system. Electr Power Syst Res. 2017;142:125-33.

53
[67] Bahrman MP, Johnson BK. The ABCs of HVDC transmission technologies. IEEE Power Energy Mag.
2007;5:32-44.
[68] Sood V. HVDC and FACTS Controllers: Applications of Static Converters in Power Systems. USA:
Kluwer; 2004.
[69] Xue Y, Zhang X. Reactive Power and AC Voltage Control of LCC HVDC System With Controllable
Capacitors. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2017;32:753-64.
[70] Guo C, Yang Z, Jiang B, Zhao C. An Evolved Capacitor-Commutated Converter Embedded With
Antiparallel Thyristors Based Dual-Directional Full-Bridge Module. IEEE Trans Power Del.
2018;33:928-37.
[71] Ottosson N, Kjellin L. Modular back-to-back HVDC, with capacitor commutated converters (CCC).
Seventh International Conference on AC-DC Power Transmission2001
[72] Xue Y, Zhang X, Yang C. Elimination of Commutation Failures of LCC HVDC System with Controllable
Capacitors. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2016;31:3289-99.
[73] Wen J, Wang J, Wang L, Yin W, Liu B. Evaluation of Capacitor Commutated Converter HVDC for Qinghai-
Xizhang Interconnection Project. 9th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission
(ACDC 2010)2010
[74] Xue Y, Zhang X, Yang C. Commutation Failure Elimination of LCC HVDC Systems Using Thyristor-Based
Controllable Capacitors. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2018;33:1448-58.
[75] Electron Highways: Technologies for High Voltage Transmission. BNEF, 2017.
[76] Torres-Olguin RE, Molinas M, Undeland T. Offshore Wind Farm Grid Integration by VSC Technology
With LCC-Based HVDC Transmission. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy. 2012;3:899-907.
[77] Pan J, Nuqui R, Srivastava K, Jonsson T, Holmberg P, Hafner Y. AC Grid with Embedded VSC-HVDC for
Secure and Efficient Power Delivery. 2008 IEEE Energy 2030 Conference2008
[78] Gowaid IA, Adam GP, Massoud AM, Ahmed S, Holliday D, Williams BW. Quasi Two-Level Operation of
Modular Multilevel Converter for Use in a High-Power DC Transformer With DC Fault Isolation
Capability. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2015;30:108-23.
[79] Badkubi S, Nazarpour D, Khazaie J, Khalilian M, mokhtari M. Reducing the current harmonics of a wind
farm generation based on VSC-HVDC transmission line by shunt active power filters. Energy Procedia.
2012;14:861-6.
[80] Barnes M, Beddard A. Voltage Source Converter HVDC Links – The State of the Art and Issues Going
Forward. Energy Procedia. 2012;24:108-22.
[81] Adam GP, Ahmed KH, Finney SJ, Bell K, Williams BW. New Breed of Network Fault-Tolerant Voltage-
Source-Converter HVDC Transmission System. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2013;28:335-46.
[82] Macleod N, Cowton N, Egan J. System restoration using the "black" start capability of the 500MW
EIRGRID East- West VSC-HVDC interconnector. IET International Conference on Resilience of
Transmission and Distribution Networks (RTDN) 20152015
[83] Friedrich K. Modern HVDC PLUS application of VSC in Modular Multilevel Converter topology. 2010
IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics2010
[84] Knaak H. Modular multilevel converters and HVDC/FACTS: A success story. Proceedings of the 2011
14th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications2011
[85] M. Davies MD, J. Dorn, J. Lang, D. Retzmann, D. Soerangr. HVDC PLUS – Basics and Principle of
Operation. Siemens, 2009.
[86] HVDC PLUS – the decisive step ahead. Siemens, 2016.
[87] Adam GP, Abdelsalam I, Fletcher JE, Burt GM, Holliday D, Finney SJ. New Efficient Submodule for a
Modular Multilevel Converter in Multiterminal HVDC Networks. IEEE Trans Power Electron.
2017;32:4258-78.
[88] M Elizondo HK. Economics of High Voltage dc Networks. United States: PNNL, 2016.
[89] Tu P, Yang S, Wang P. Reliability- and Cost-Based Redundancy Design for Modular Multilevel
Converter. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 2019;66:2333-42.
[90] Adam GP, Davidson IE. Robust and Generic Control of Full-Bridge Modular Multilevel Converter High-
Voltage DC Transmission Systems. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2015;30:2468-76.
[91] Li R, Adam GP, Holliday D, Fletcher JE, Williams BW. Hybrid Cascaded Modular Multilevel Converter
With DC Fault Ride-Through Capability for the HVDC Transmission System. IEEE Trans Power Del.
2015;30:1853-62.

54
[92] Trinh N, Zeller M, Wuerflinger K, Erlich I. Generic Model of MMC-VSC-HVDC for Interaction Study With
AC Power System. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2016;31:27-34.
[93] Elserougi AA, Abdel-Khalik AS, Massoud AM, Ahmed S. A New Protection Scheme for HVDC Converters
Against DC-Side Faults With Current Suppression Capability. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2014;29:1569-77.
[94] Bawa H. ABB enables world’s first HVDC grid in China. Zurich, Switzerland: ABB, 2018.
[95] Bathurst G, Bordignan P. Delivery of the Nan'ao multi-terminal VSC-HVDC system. 11th IET
International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission2015
[96] Rao H. Architecture of Nan'ao multi-terminal VSC-HVDC system and its multi-functional control. CSEE
Journal of Power and Energy Systems. 2015;1:9-18.
[97] Pipelzadeh Y, Chaudhuri B, Green T, Wu Y, Pang H, Cao J. Modelling and Dynamic Operation of the
Zhoushan DC Grid: Worlds First Five-Terminal VSC-HVDC Project2015.
[98] Zhang L, Zou Y, Yu J, Qin J, Vittal V, Karady GG, et al. Modeling, control, and protection of modular
multilevel converter-based multi-terminal HVDC systems: A review. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy
Systems. 2017;3:340-52.
[99] Ladoux P, Serbia N, Carroll EI. On the Potential of IGCTs in HVDC. IEEE Journal of Emerging and
Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2015;3:780-93.
[100] Consultancy support for the NEMO Interconnector: Cost Assessment Report. British Power
International, 2013.
[101] Sanz IM, Chaudhuri B, Strbac G. Inertial Response From Offshore Wind Farms Connected Through DC
Grids. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2015;30:1518-27.
[102] Cao Y, Wang W, Li Y, Tan Y, Chen C, He L, et al. A Virtual Synchronous Generator Control Strategy for
VSC-MTDC Systems. IEEE Trans Energy Convers. 2018;33:750-61.
[103] Nguyen MH, Saha TK, Eghbal M. Master self-tuning VDCOL function for hybrid multi-terminal HVDC
connecting renewable resources to a large power system. IET Gener Trans Dis. 2017;11:3341-9.
[104] Dong S, Chi Y, Li Y. Active Voltage Feedback Control for Hybrid Multiterminal HVDC System Adopting
Improved Synchronverters. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2016;31:445-55.
[105] Electricity Ten Year Statement 2015: Appendix E. United Kingdom: National Grid, 2015.
[106] Härtel P, Vrana TK, Hennig T, von Bonin M, Wiggelinkhuizen EJ, Nieuwenhout FDJ. Review of
investment model cost parameters for VSC HVDC transmission infrastructure. Electr Power Syst Res.
2017;151:419-31.
[107] Vrana TK, Härtel P. Estimation of investment model cost parameters for VSC HVDC transmission
infrastructure. Electr Power Syst Res. 2018;160:99-108.
[108] Power semiconductors: Proven Reliability and High Quality for Best Performances. ABB, 2018.
[109] Wang L, Xu J, Wang G, Zhang Z. Lifetime estimation of IGBT modules for MMC-HVDC application.
Microelectronics Reliability. 2018;82:90-9.
[110] Guo C, Yin Z, Zhao C, Iravani R. Small-signal dynamics of hybrid LCC-VSC HVDC systems. International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2018;98:362-72.
[111] Jung J, Cui S, Lee J, Sul S. A New Topology of Multilevel VSC Converter for a Hybrid HVDC Transmission
System. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2017;32:4199-209.
[112] Haleem NM, Rajapakse AD, Gole AM, Fernando IT. Investigation of Fault Ride-Through Capability of
Hybrid VSC-LCC Multi-Terminal HVDC Transmission Systems. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2019;34:241-50.
[113] Li P, Adam GP, Finney SJ, Holliday D. Operation Analysis of Thyristor-Based Front-to-Front Active-
Forced-Commutated Bridge DC Transformer in LCC and VSC Hybrid HVDC Networks. IEEE Journal of
Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2017;5:1657-69.
[114] Bakas P, Harnefors L, Norrga S, Nami A, Ilves K, Dijkhuizen F, et al. A Review of Hybrid Topologies
Combining Line-Commutated and Cascaded Full-Bridge Converters. IEEE Trans Power Electron.
2017;32:7435-48.
[115] Li Z, Zhan R, Li Y, He Y, Hou J, Zhao X, et al. Recent developments in HVDC transmission systems to
support renewable energy integration. Global Energy Interconnection. 2018;1:595-607.
[116] Ying H, Weihuang H, Ming L, Tao L. Steady-state control strategy of multi-terminal hybrid UHVDC. 2017
19th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE'17 ECCE Europe)2017
[117] Technologies for Transmission System. European Network of Transmission System Operators for
Electricity (ENTSOE), 2016.
[118] Francos PL, Verdugo SS, Álvarez HF, Guyomarch S, Loncle J. INELFE — Europe's first integrated
onshore HVDC interconnection. 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting2012

55
[119] Callavik M, Lundberg P, Hansson O. NORDLINK: Pioneering VSC-HVDC interconnector between
Norway and Germany. ABB Power Systems, 2015.
[120] Van Hertem D, Delimar M. 6 - High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) electric power transmission systems.
In: Melhem Z, editor. Electricity Transmission, Distribution and Storage Systems: Woodhead
Publishing; 2013. p. 143-73.
[121] Barthold LO. Technical and Economic Aspects of Tripole HVDC. 2006 International Conference on
Power System Technology2006
[122] MacLeod NM, Barker CD, Kirby NM. Connection of renewable energy sources through grid constraint
points using HVDC power transmission systems. IEEE PES T&D 20102010
[123] Jae-Hyuk K, Yoon-Seok L, Byung-moon H. New pre-charging scheme for MMC-based back-to-back
HVDC system operated in nearest level control. 2017 IEEE 3rd International Future Energy Electronics
Conference and ECCE Asia (IFEEC 2017 - ECCE Asia)2017
[124] Sellick RL, Åkerberg M. Comparison of HVDC Light (VSC) and HVDC Classic (LCC) site aspects, for a
500MW 400kV HVDC transmission scheme. 10th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power
Transmission (ACDC 2012)2012
[125] Pan Z, Wang X, Mei G, Liu Y, Yao W, Liu H, et al. A transformer neutral current balancing device to
restrain half-cycle saturation induced by HVDC monopolar operations. Electr Power Syst Res.
2016;132:104-14.
[126] Marzinotto M, Mazzanti G, Nervi M. Ground/sea return with electrode systems for HVDC transmission.
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2018;100:222-30.
[127] Skog J-E, Koreman K, Pääjärvi B, Worzyk T, Andersröd T. The NorNed HVDC Cable Link: A Power
Transmission Highway Between Norway and the Netherlands ABB Online Library
[128] Boeck SD, Tielens P, Leterme W, Hertem DV. Configurations and earthing of HVDC grids. 2013 IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting2013
[129] Marcus Haeusler SB. HVDC Solutions for Integration of the Renewable Energy Resources: Comparison
of Technical Alternatives and System Configurations. Siemens 2017.
[130] Carlson A. Specific Requirements on HVDC converter tranformers ABB Transformers.Sweden, 1996
[131] Matar M, Paradis D, Iravani R. Real-time simulation of modular multilevel converters for controller
hardware-in-the-loop testing. IET Power Electron. 2016;9:42-50.
[132] Raoofsheibani D, Henschel D, Hinkel P, Ostermann M, Wellssow WH, Spanel U. Quasi-dynamic model
of VSC-HVDC transmission systems for an operator training simulator application. Electr Power Syst
Res. 2018;163:733-43.
[133] Castro LM, Tovar-Hernández JH, González-Cabrera N, Rodríguez-Rodríguez JR. Real-power economic
dispatch of AC/DC power transmission systems comprising multiple VSC-HVDC equipment.
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2019;107:140-8.
[134] Franken B, Andersson G. Analysis of HVDC converters connected to weak AC systems. IEEE Trans
Power Syst. 1990;5:235-42.
[135] Bancal S. Basic Design of an HVDC Interconnection in Brazil. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of
Technology; 2015.
[136] Hertem DV, Gomis-Bellmunt O, Liang J. HVDC Grids - For Offshore and Supergrid of the Future. USA:
Wiley-IEEE; 2016.
[137] Pipelzadeh Y, Chaudhuri B, Green TC, Adapa R. Role of western HVDC link in stability of future Great
Britain (GB) transmission system. 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting2015
[138] Sanz IM, Chaudhuri B, Strbac G, Hussain K, Bayfield C, Adapa R. Corrective control through Western
HVDC link in future Great Britain transmission system. 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting2015
[139] Achenbach S, Barry V, Bayfield CH, Coventry PF. Increasing the GB electricity transmission networks'
power transfer capability between North and South — The Western HVDC Link. 10th IET International
Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC 2012)2012
[140] Mircea Ardelean PM. HVDC Submarine Power Cables in the World. European Commission, 2015.
[141] Viking HVDC Link Official Website. Available: http://viking-link.com/, 2018, [accessed 30 January
2019].
[142] Montanari GC, Morshuis PHF, Zhou M, Stevens GC, Vaughan AS, Han Z, et al. Criteria influencing the
selection and design of HV and UHV DC cables in new network applications. High Voltage. 2018;3:90-
5.

56
[143] Ingemansson D, Wheeler JD, MacLeod NM, Gallon F, Ruiton O. The South — West scheme: A new HVAC
and HVDC transmission system in Sweden. 10th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power
Transmission (ACDC 2012)2012
[144] Yang J, Zheng J, Tang G, He Z. Characteristics and Recovery Performance of VSC-HVDC DC Transmission
Line Fault. 2010 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference2010
[145] HVDC Mass Impregnated Cable Systems—a Well-Proven Concept. Nexans 2018.
[146] Murata Y, Sakamaki M, Abe K, Inoue Y, Mashio S, Kashiyama S, et al. Development of high voltage DC-
XLPE cable system2013.
[147] Mokhberdoran A, Carvalho A, Silva N, Leite H, Carrapatoso A. Application study of superconducting
fault current limiters in meshed HVDC grids protected by fast protection relays. Electr Power Syst Res.
2017;143:292-302.
[148] NISHIKAWA S, SASAKI K, AKITA K, SAKAMAKI M, KAZAMA T, SUZUKI K. XLPE Cable for DC Link.
2017:59-64.
[149] Cable Power. EU EuropaCable 2014.
[150] Abdel-Moamen MA, Shaaban SA, Jurado F. France-Spain HVDC transmission system with hybrid
modular multilevel converter and alternate-arm converter. 2017 Innovations in Power and Advanced
Computing Technologies (i-PACT)2017
[151] UK Electricity Interconnection: Driving competition and innovation in the HVDC supply chain. United
Kingdom National Grid 2016.
[152] Thomas H, Marian A, Chervyakov A, Stückrad S, Salmieri D, Rubbia C. Superconducting transmission
lines – Sustainable electric energy transfer with higher public acceptance? Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2016;55:59-72.
[153] Bruzek CE, Allais A, Dickson D, Lallouet N, Allweins K, Marzahn E. Superconducting DC cables to
improve the efficiency of electricity transmission and distribution networks. Eco-Friendly Innovation
in Electricity Transmission and Distribution Networks2015. p. 135-67.
[154] Xue Y, Kong D, Song Z, Hamidi V, Zhang X. Development of an Advanced LCC-HVDC Model for
Transmission System. 11th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission2015
[155] Lee G, Moon S, Kim R, Kim C. Reactive power control operation scheme of LCC-HVDC for maximizing
shunt capacitor size in AC systems. 2015 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering
Conference (APPEEC)2015
[156] Gnanarathna UN, Gole AM, Jayasinghe RP. Efficient Modeling of Modular Multilevel HVDC Converters
(MMC) on Electromagnetic Transient Simulation Programs. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2011;26:316-24.
[157] Bergna G, Garcés A, Berne E, Egrot P, Arzandé A, Vannier J, et al. A Generalized Power Control Approach
in ABC Frame for Modular Multilevel Converter HVDC Links Based on Mathematical Optimization. IEEE
Trans Power Del. 2014;29:386-94.
[158] Arani MFM, Mohamed YAI. Analysis and Performance Enhancement of Vector-Controlled VSC in HVDC
Links Connected to Very Weak Grids. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2017;32:684-93.
[159] Z ZJ. Impact of short circuit ratio and phase locked loop parameters on the small-signal behaviour of a
VSC-HVdc converter. 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM)2016
[160] Zhang L, Harnefors L, Nee H. Interconnection of Two Very Weak AC Systems by VSC-HVDC Links Using
Power-Synchronization Control. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2011;26:344-55.
[161] Sayed S, Massoud A. Minimum transmission power loss in multi-terminal HVDC systems: A general
methodology for radial and mesh networks. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2018.
[162] Li B, Liu T, Zhang Y. Unified adaptive droop control design based on dynamic reactive power limiter in
VSC-MTDC. Electr Power Syst Res. 2017;148:18-26.
[163] Khan S, Bhowmick S. A comprehensive power-flow model of multi-terminal PWM based VSC-HVDC
systems with DC voltage droop control. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems.
2018;102:71-83.
[164] Lee J-G, Khan UA, Lee H-Y, Lim S-W, Lee B-W. Mitigation of commutation failures in LCC–HVDC systems
based on superconducting fault current limiters. Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications.
2016;530:160-3.
[165] Wang D, Gao HL, Luo SB, Zou GB. Travelling wave pilot protection for LCC-HVDC transmission lines
based on electronic transformers’ differential output characteristic. International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems. 2017;93:283-90.

57
[166] Yoo Y, Jung S, Jang G. A study on Overvoltage and Protection of Line-Commutated Converter HVDC
Metallic Return Cable. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2015;48:369-72.
[167] Elserougi AA, Massoud AM, Abdel-Khalik AS, Ahmed S. Bidirectional Buck-Boost Inverter-Based HVDC
Transmission System With AC-Side Contribution Blocking Capability During DC-Side Faults. IEEE
Trans Power Del. 2014;29:1249-61.
[168] Candelaria J, Park J. VSC-HVDC system protection: A review of current methods. 2011 IEEE/PES Power
Systems Conference and Exposition2011
[169] Lee J-G, Khan UA, Hwang J-S, Seong J-K, Shin W-J, Park B-B, et al. Assessment on the influence of
resistive superconducting fault current limiter in VSC-HVDC system. Physica C: Superconductivity and
its Applications. 2014;504:163-6.
[170] Manohar P, Ahmed W. Superconducting fault current limiter to mitigate the effect of DC line fault in
VSC-HVDC system. 2012 International Conference on Power, Signals, Controls and Computation2012
[171] Garcia WRL, Tixador P, Raison B, Bertinato A, Luscan B, Creusot C. Technical and Economic Analysis of
the R-Type SFCL for HVDC Grids Protection. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond. 2017;27:1-9.
[172] Lee J-G, Khan UA, Lim S-W, Shin W-j, Seo I-J, Lee B-W. Comparative study of superconducting fault
current limiter both for LCC-HVDC and VSC-HVDC systems. Physica C: Superconductivity and its
Applications. 2015;518:149-53.
[173] Pioneer and Technology Leader, Driving Gas-Insulated Switchgear (GIS) Innovations. ABB, 2018.
[174] High-VOltage Circuit Breakers: From 72.5 kV up to 800 kV. Siemens Energy Sector. Berlin2012.
[175] It's time to connect: Technical description of HVDC Light® technology. ABB, 2008.
[176] Van Hertem D, Ghandhari M. Multi-terminal VSC HVDC for the European supergrid: Obstacles. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev. 2010;14:3156-63.
[177] Weixing L, Jovcic D, Nguefeu S, Saad H. Coordination of MMC converter protection and DC line
protection in DC grids. 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM)2016
[178] Han X, Sima W, Yang M, Li L, Yuan T, Si Y. Transient Characteristics Under Ground and Short-Circuit
Faults in a 500 kV MMC-Based HVDC System With Hybrid DC Circuit Breakers. IEEE Trans Power Del.
2018;33:1378-87.
[179] MacIver C. A Reliability Evaluation of Offshore HVDC Transmission Network Options. Glasgow:
University of Strathcylde; 2015.
[180] Pei X, Cwikowski O, Smith AC, Barnes M. Design and Experimental Tests of a Superconducting Hybrid
DC Circuit Breaker. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond. 2018;28:1-5.
[181] Raza A, Akhtar A, Jamil M, Abbas G, Gilani SO, Yuchao L, et al. A Protection Scheme for Multi-Terminal
VSC-HVDC Transmission Systems. IEEE Access. 2018;6:3159-66.
[182] Blond SL, Bertho R, Coury DV, Vieira JCM. Design of protection schemes for multi-terminal HVDC
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;56:965-74.
[183] Tang G, He Z, Pang H, Huang X, Zhang X. Basic topology and key devices of the five-terminal DC grid.
CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems. 2015;1:22-35.
[184] Cwikowski O, Wickramasinghe HR, Konstantinou G, Pou J, Barnes M, Shuttleworth R. Modular
Multilevel Converter DC Fault Protection. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2018;33:291-300.
[185] Nguyen A-D, Nguyen T-T, Kim H-M. A Comparison of Different Hybrid Direct Current Circuit Breakers
for Application in HVDC System2016.
[186] Khan UA, Lee J, Amir F, Lee B. A Novel Model of HVDC Hybrid-Type Superconducting Circuit Breaker
and Its Performance Analysis for Limiting and Breaking DC Fault Currents. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond.
2015;25:1-9.
[187] Callavik M, Blomberg A, Häfner J, Jacobson B. The Hybrid HVDC Breaker: An innovation breakthrough
enabling reliable HVDC grids. ABB Grid Systems. 2012.
[188] The Spain-France Underground Electrical Interconnection: A World-Pioneering Project. INELFE, 2015.
[189] S. Dennetière SN, H. Saad, J. Mahseredjian. Modeling of Modular Multilevel Converters for the France-
Spain link. International Conference on Power Systems Transients.Vancouver, Canada, 2013.
[190] Peralta J, Saad H, Dennetiere S, Mahseredjian J, Nguefeu S. Detailed and Averaged Models for a 401-
Level MMC–HVDC System. IEEE Trans Power Del. 2012;27:1501-8.
[191] Ferreira AA, Bellmunt OG, Teixido M. Grid power flow impact on the on-state losses of the modular
multilevel converter. 12th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC
2016)2016
[192] Roper P. Western Link Final NewsLetter. United Kingdom: ScottishPower, National Grid 2018.

58
[193] Mike Wilks GK, Craig Lucas, Charlotte Higgins. Western HVDC Final Funding Review: A report to Ofgem.
Pöyry, 2012.
[194] M. G. Bennett NSD, A. Leirbukt. A Survey of the Reliability of HVDC Systems Throughout the World
During 2011 – 2012. Cigré Paris Session.Paris, 2014.
[195] N.S.Dhaliwal MGB. A Survey of the Reliability of HVDC Systems Throughout the World During 2013 –
2014. Cigré Paris Session.Paris, 2016.
[196] Adam GP, Gowaid IA, Finney SJ, Holliday D, Williams BW. Review of dc–dc converters for multi-
terminal HVDC transmission networks. IET Power Electron. 2016;9:281-96.
[197] Müller HK, Torbaghan SS, Gibescu M, Roggenkamp MM, van der Meijden MAMM. The need for a
common standard for voltage levels of HVDC VSC technology. Energ Policy. 2013;63:244-51.
[198] Uehara K, Ikeda H. Recent and future situation of Japan’s T&D system. Journal of International Council
on Electrical Engineering. 2016;6:231-4.
[199] Babazadeh D, Van Hertem D, Nordström L. Study of centralized and distributed coordination of power
injection in multi-TSO HVDC grid with large off-shore wind integration. Electr Power Syst Res.
2016;136:281-8.
[200] Patel MM, Yadav VK. Design and operational constraints of NEA +800kV, 6000MW UHVDC bipolar
system. 2017 Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT)2017
[201] Babazadeh D, Chenine M, Nordström L. Survey on the Factors Required in Design of Communication
Architecture for Future DC grids. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2013;46:58-63.
[202] Phulpin Y, Ernst D. Ancillary services and operation of multi-terminal HVdc systems. 2012.
[203] Dai J, Phulpin Y, Sarlette A, Ernst D. Coordinated primary frequency control among non-synchronous
systems connected by a multi-terminal high-voltage direct current grid. IET Gener Trans Dis.
2012;6:99-108.
[204] Nanou SI, Tzortzopoulos OD, Papathanassiou SA. Evaluation of an enhanced power dispatch control
scheme for multi-terminal HVDC grids using Monte-Carlo simulation. Electr Power Syst Res.
2016;140:925-32.
[205] Bird L, Lew D, Milligan M, Carlini EM, Estanqueiro A, Flynn D, et al. Wind and solar energy curtailment:
A review of international experience. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;65:577-86.
[206] Zakeri B, Price J, Zeyringer M, Keppo I, Mathiesen BV, Syri S. The direct interconnection of the UK and
Nordic power market – Impact on social welfare and renewable energy integration. Energy.
2018;162:1193-204.
[207] Goop J, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. The effect of high levels of solar generation on congestion in the
European electricity transmission grid. Applied Energy. 2017;205:1128-40.
[208] Dong C, Qi Y, Dong W, Lu X, Liu T, Qian S. Decomposing driving factors for wind curtailment under
economic new normal in China. Applied Energy. 2018;217:178-88.
[209] Held A, Ragwitz M, Sensfuß F, Resch G, Olmos L, Ramos A, et al. How can the renewables targets be
reached cost-effectively? Policy options for the development of renewables and the transmission grid.
Energ Policy. 2018;116:112-26.
[210] Cai Y, Aoyama Y. Fragmented authorities, institutional misalignments, and challenges to renewable
energy transition: A case study of wind power curtailment in China. Energy Research & Social Science.
2018;41:71-9.
[211] Feng Y, Wang S, Sha Y, Ding Q, Yuan J, Guo X. Coal power overcapacity in China: Province-Level
estimates and policy implications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2018;137:89-100.
[212] Fang D, Zhao C, Yu Q. Government regulation of renewable energy generation and transmission in
China’s electricity market. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;93:775-93.
[213] China's UHV Transmission Build-out Slowing. BNEF, 2018.
[214] Wang Y, Yan W, Zhuang S, Li J. Does grid-connected clean power promote regional energy efficiency?
An empirical analysis based on the upgrading grid infrastructure across China. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 2018;186:736-47.
[215] Lin B, Wu W. Cost of long distance electricity transmission in China. Energ Policy. 2017;109:132-40.
[216] Liu B, Liao S, Cheng C, Chen F, Li W. Hydropower curtailment in Yunnan Province, southwestern China:
Constraint analysis and suggestions. Renewable Energy. 2018;121:700-11.
[217] Zhao Z-Y, Chen Y-L. Critical factors affecting the development of renewable energy power generation:
Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;184:466-80.

59
[218] Li Y, Lukszo Z, Weijnen M. The impact of inter-regional transmission grid expansion on China’s power
sector decarbonization. Applied Energy. 2016;183:853-73.
[219] Torvik K, Lockhart B. High-Voltage Direct Current Transmission Systems. Navigant Research, 2013.
[220] Uehara K, Kern C, Koepfinger JL, Waldron M, Li G, Choe J-W. Future Vision of Transmission and
Distribution 2030 23rd International Conference on Electricity Distribution.Lyon, 2015
[221] Galvin R. Trouble at the end of the line: Local activism and social acceptance in low-carbon electricity
transmission in Lower Franconia, Germany. Energy Research & Social Science. 2018;38:114-26.
[222] Komendantova N, Battaglini A. Beyond Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) and Not-in-My-Backyard
(NIMBY) models? Addressing the social and public acceptance of electric transmission lines in
Germany. Energy Research & Social Science. 2016;22:224-31.
[223] Purvins A, Sereno L, Ardelean M, Covrig C-F, Efthimiadis T, Minnebo P. Submarine power cable
between Europe and North America: A techno-economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production.
2018;186:131-45.
[224] Barasa M, Bogdanov D, Oyewo AS, Breyer C. A cost optimal resolution for Sub-Saharan Africa powered
by 100% renewables in 2030. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;92:440-57.
[225] Andersen AD. No transition without transmission: HVDC electricity infrastructure as an enabler for
renewable energy? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 2014;13:75-95.
[226] Boie I, Kost C, Bohn S, Agsten M, Bretschneider P, Snigovyi O, et al. Opportunities and challenges of high
renewable energy deployment and electricity exchange for North Africa and Europe – Scenarios for
power sector and transmission infrastructure in 2030 and 2050. Renewable Energy. 2016;87:130-44.
[227] Benasla M, Allaoui T, Brahami M, Denaï M, Sood VK. HVDC links between North Africa and Europe:
Impacts and benefits on the dynamic performance of the European system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2018;82:3981-91.
[228] Benasla M, Hess D, Allaoui T, Brahami M, Denaï M. The transition towards a sustainable energy system
in Europe: What role can North Africa's solar resources play? Energy Strategy Reviews. 2019;24:1-13.
[229] Africa 2030: Roadmap for a renewable energy future. Abu Dhabi: IRENA, 2015.
[230] Hess D. The value of a dispatchable concentrating solar power transfer from Middle East and North
Africa to Europe via point-to-point high voltage direct current lines. Applied Energy. 2018;221:605-
45.
[231] Zappa W, Junginger M, van den Broek M. Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by
2050? Applied Energy. 2019;233-234:1027-50.
[232] Blakers A, Lu B, Stocks M. 100% renewable electricity in Australia. Energy. 2017;133:471-82.
[233] Europe leads the global clean energy transition: Commission welcomes ambitious agreement on
further renewable energy development in the EU. Strasbourg: EU, 2018.
[234] Renewable Energy Prospects: China. Abu Dhabi: IRENA, 2014.
[235] China Energy Engineering: Annual Report 2016. China: Energy China, 2016.
[236] Buckley T, Shah K. Karnataka’s Electricity Sector Transformation: India’s Leading Renewable Energy
State. IEEFA, 2018.
[237] REmap 2030: Renewable Energy Prospects for the Russian Federation Abu Dhabi: IRENA, 2017.
[238] Gurgel A, Sergey P. The Impacts of the Brazilian NDC and their contribution to the Paris Agreement on
Climate Change. 20th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis.West Lafayette, 2017
[239] Wogan D, Pradhan S, Albardi S. GCC Energy System Overview. Saudi Arabia: KAPSARC, 2017.
[240] Young D, Bistline J. The costs and value of renewable portfolio standards in meeting decarbonization
goals. Energy Economics. 2018;73:337-51.
[241] IRENA. Renewable Energy Prospects: United States of America, REmap 2030 analysis. Abu Dhabi,
2015.
[242] Liu J. China's renewable energy law and policy: A critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2019;99:212-9.
[243] Mathy S, Menanteau P, Criqui P. After the Paris Agreement: Measuring the Global Decarbonization
Wedges From National Energy Scenarios. Ecological Economics. 2018;150:273-89.
[244] Mendonça HL, van Aduard de Macedo-Soares TDL, Fonseca MVdA. Working towards a framework
based on mission-oriented practices for assessing renewable energy innovation policies. Journal of
Cleaner Production. 2018;193:709-19.
[245] Aziz T, Ketjoy N. PV Penetration Limits in Low Voltage Networks and Voltage Variations. IEEE Access.
2017;5:16784-92.

60
[246] Alassi A, Ellabban O, Bañales S. Generic Distributed Photovoltaic Cost Outlook Methodology: Australian
Market Application Example. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and
Applications (ICRERA).Paris, 2018
[247] Dobrotkova Z, Surana K, Audinet P. The price of solar energy: Comparing competitive auctions for
utility-scale solar PV in developing countries. Energ Policy. 2018;118:133-48.
[248] Ding M, Xu Z, Wang W, Wang X, Song Y, Chen D. A review on China‫׳‬s large-scale PV integration:
Progress, challenges and recommendations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;53:639-52.

61