For our installation , we are planning a common emergency DG set (EDG) of 2000 KVA , 415 volts. However there is one location with anticipated requirement of 200 KVA which is approximately 2 km distance from the EDG. The location and the logistics do not allow a separate EDG set of 200 KVA to be placed there.Therefore we have considered 415 volts cables from the EDG to the location.Considering the distance , the size and no. of cables required are more.There are suggestions that installing transformers at both the ends, and taking the required power through 11 KV cables , would be much more economical. Which option should we go for ?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Emergency power requirement at a distance of 2 KM 2
- Thread starter eletest
- Start date
Skogsgurra
Electrical
You would, as you already say, need an enormously thick cable if you are trying to supply 200 kW over 2 km distance. My tables say that a 240 mm2 Cu cable can be used up to 125 m at that power level. Two km is sixteen times longer. So, sorry, either a 6 or 11 kV cable with transformers or a separate genset at the remote location.
Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
oldfieldguy
Electrical
You might want to look at stepping up your emergency power voltage level to a higher voltage, then stepping it back down to the utilization voltage at the far end. We do that at several facilities at the 480-volt level here, using small 2300-volt transformers wher we have about a thousand meters of separation.. Somebody gave you good advice.
old field guy
old field guy
-
1
- #5
Skogsgurra
Electrical
My tables are in paper format and copied from a book that I don't have access to. Also, they are in Swedish...
A good site is this:
And there, you can find a table that is very similar to "my tables".
You find it at
The results are not identical, but they clearly show that you cannot go much further than around 200 m with the 200 kW load.
Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
A good site is this:
And there, you can find a table that is very similar to "my tables".
You find it at
The results are not identical, but they clearly show that you cannot go much further than around 200 m with the 200 kW load.
Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
Keep below 11kV if you can. 200kW at 2000m is easily manageable at 3.3kV or 6.6kV. At 11kV you will enter the world of partial discharge, more complex joints and terminations, more expensive hardware, and you don't want to be involved in any of that without good reason.
Use a Yd transformer at the source (delta makes things easier for the generator) and a Dy at the load (avoids difficulties with protection and earthing).
Use a Yd transformer at the source (delta makes things easier for the generator) and a Dy at the load (avoids difficulties with protection and earthing).
- Thread starter
- #7
racookpe1978
Nuclear
Will there be significant differences in the poles for a 11 KV and a 3.3 Kv vs a 6.6 KV?
That is, check poles and insulators + cross-bars, wires, transformer cost and control (breakers/switches) cost .. Prices may go up for one part, but down for another part of the installation.
That is, check poles and insulators + cross-bars, wires, transformer cost and control (breakers/switches) cost .. Prices may go up for one part, but down for another part of the installation.
Probably not if it goes overhead. The OP said cables, as opposed to lines, so I assumed it was a surface or buried application rather than aerial. I doubt the conductors for an OHL would be much different at any of those voltages because mechanical strength would be the dominant requirement rather than current-carrying capacity.
15thaugust
Electrical
What if we use multiple cables in parallel? Then the load current will be divided amongst them and cable size can also be reduced. I dont know which will cost less.
Skogsgurra
Electrical
15th
You will need around 20 thick cables in parallel for each phase. That is 60x185 mm2 cables for the phases and probably the same number for the Neutral, depending on what load there is. Not practical. And very, very expensive. And very tempting for the Cu thieves.
Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
You will need around 20 thick cables in parallel for each phase. That is 60x185 mm2 cables for the phases and probably the same number for the Neutral, depending on what load there is. Not practical. And very, very expensive. And very tempting for the Cu thieves.
Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
In my opinion, the solution proposed by Scotty is less expensive [approximate only a half]. That means 2 transformers of 300 kVA 4% 3.3/0.415 kV and 2*3*240 sqr.mm 3.3 kV copper cables [my appreciation 160000 US$ total].
However, 5 parallel groups of 3 single core cables of 500 mm^2 copper could provide a same voltage drop [on my appreciation it could be more than 350000 US Dollars].
However, 5 parallel groups of 3 single core cables of 500 mm^2 copper could provide a same voltage drop [on my appreciation it could be more than 350000 US Dollars].
-
1
- #13
![[blush]](/data/assets/smilies/blush.gif "[blush] [blush]")
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question