Whole-Life Costs
And Environmental
Assessment Of High Voltage
Power Cable Systems
Gary STEVENS, Ben PHILPOT, Janet THOMAS GnoSys Global Ltd, (GB),
Mike FAIRHURST, Ankit GORWADIA, National Grid, (GB),
The study and the Leets cable model on transport of the raw materials to the
assess each stage in the life cycle but the cable manufacturer. The extrusion of the
study is implemented as a streamlined model cable is assumed to be carried out on a
to capture the most important impacts and vertical extrusion line feeding a heated
ensure the focus is maintained on cable crosslinking catenary. In this paper the
performance rather than infrastructure degassing stage is not included.
which are common for different cable
Cable Deployment
types. The cost and environmental impacts
associated with putting in place the local An assessment of cable deployment was
infrastructure for deployment of the cable made and there was no difference between
are also considered. cable type. Deployment options included
cable tunnel deployment, lay direct or
Cable Manufacture
direct buried in ducts or troughs with
The production of each of the raw backfill. Transport to site is assumed to
materials used in the cable construction be independent of cable type as it is more
is assessed in addition to the actual usual to transport the largest possible
cable production process. So the original cable drums consistent with road haulage
production of the polymer sheathing and maximum drum weight constraints,
compound, the insulation polymer, the therefore transport to site is assumed
semi-conductor compound and the metallic to be the same for all cable types and
conductor material (electro-refined copper) deployment scenarios.
are all considered for this LCA. The LCA for Some key differences would arise in
cable manufacture differentiates between relation to the effective number of cable
extrusion followed by heated pipe catenary joints used in deployment as the maximum
crosslinking in the case of the benchmark length between joints increases for smaller
XLPE cable and extrusion combined with conductor and cable sizes. Cable joints
controlled cooling for thermoplastic blend are not considered as they fall outside the
cables. This also includes some assumptions system boundary.
Figure 3: Global
Warming Potential
- Deployment
Comparison
coal-based generation and increasing The overall carbon saving of the new
renewables is evident. While this model cable over XLPE was 125 tonnes CO2
looked only at mixes for UK, LEETS could across the life time (60 years) for the
operate similar models based on generation functional unit employed.
mixes from around the world.
Economic Analysis
The life cycle data for manufacture of
the cables also incorporates a variety of Economic data has been difficult
generation mixes. Components of the extremely hard to obtain partly because
cable will likely be sourced from a number there is no current transmission system
of different countries, each with their own project on which this report can be based
characteristic generation mix profile. The and partly because many of the detailed
option to select the most appropriate mix economics rest with external contractors
is built into the LEETS-Cable model. and cable manufacturers rather than
Operating cables at a higher conductor National Grid.
temperatures (150C compared to 90C
Manufacturing
for XLPE) leads to a significant increase in
transmission losses, especially at higher The cable procurement cost (or direct
loads (Figure 4). However, this is usually purchase cost) and end of life costs have been
only for a very short period over the whole taken from a report by the Highland Council
life of the cable so its impact is relatively in Scotland (for an XLPE system). This makes it
small in comparison with the whole life clear that the costs may not be accurate and
impact. were difficult for them also to obtain.
Processing energy, from manufacture,
Construction
are potentially substantially lower for the
new cable design due to there being no The construction costs are taken from
need for cross-linking (Figure 5). an LCC asset policy study carried out by
Figure 5: Annual
transmission losses
by load and cable
type
GnoSys Global Ltd for National Grid 4. this is per circuit not per km. The longest
Operation time a circuit is likely to be in a fault
state for is 6 hours and the energy which
Operation and maintenance costs are should have been transmitted in this time
estimated in the Highland Report1 as at 35% load is 544.2 MWh. This results in
5600 per km per year for a double circuit. an outage cost of 26121.60 for a single 6
Since these are relatively low level costs, hour outage.
they have been rounded up for use here.
Stakeholder Perspectives
For tunnels, a figure has been included for
the operation of cooling fans. This is based Manufacturers
on data provided by National Grid 5. To better understand a manufacturers
The costs of operational losses are perspective there are two key factors that
evaluated using a figure of 5.5 pence per must be considered: material supply cost
kWh, somewhat below the consumer price and process energy costs.
of electricity since a wholesale price would Material prices were taken from Plastics
be more appropriate. Currently, the losses Infomart 6; standard low density
are not paid for explicitly; rather the cost is polyethylene: $1600 per tonne, alternative
incorporated into the price that distribution standard insulation material: $1380
networks pay the generators. However, per tonne. This suggests a materials cost
this may change in the future. The energy reduction of approximately 14% for the
figure used to calculate the losses is for a new insulation material.
2500mm2 cable operating at a continuous A conversion to sterling and scaling for a
35% max load. This equates to 259332 MJ km of cable results in:
or 3962 per year. We have assumed that 6760 per km new thermoplastic material
the losses will be the same regardless of 8150 per km for XLPE
dielectric and deployment type. An overall cost reduction of about 17%
The fault outages costs are also taken due to lower commodity price and lower
from the same report and are in alignment density of dielectric. Note that standard
with the figures quoted by National Grid. rather than clean grades of polymer were
Historical figures from National Grid all that was available and the latter will be
indicate that the occurrence of one fault more costly.
each year would be an overestimate Processing costs vary between XLPE and
of failures, however it simplifies the the new material because the new material
calculations. It should also be noted that does not require cross-linking.
Figure 7: Process
energy costs for
cable manufacture
(Electric)
This additional step requires the to 50% and this would help to reduce the
heating of not only the dielectric but also system constraint costs in an event of a
the cable inside it (conductor and inner fault.
semiconductor). The additional energy Key TSO benefits with HTC are the
use can again be quantified in terms of ability to relax constraints during post-fault
the energy supply cost. If we assume the operation. In some cases this could be from
heating is electric, then using the same 20 minutes using an XLPE cable to 6 or
price (5.5p/kWh) the processing costs even 24 hours using the new design.
could be significantly reduced as shown in
Figure 6 and Figure 7. Conclusions
Wholesale natural gas prices are slightly
cheaper so using 1.3p/kWh, the processing The LEETS-Cable model has been
costs would be: developed to be applied to any power
cable system and its deployment in any
TSOs circumstances. It may also complemented
Emergency ratings studies carried out by by whole life cost assessment including
National Grid concluded that if a double account of planned outage and cable and
cable circuit was replaced with a single accessory risk of failure. The cable model
HTC circuit and operated within 90C prior now combines environmental impacts
to the fault, the 6hr emergency rating could with economic and operational data to
be significantly enhanced by between 40 enable the consideration on trade-offs
Figure 8: Process
energy costs for
cable manufacture
(Gas)