IEEE 1547 Interconnection Working Group

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – IEEE 1547 Interconnection Working Group
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002

IEEE SCC21 Working Group
(P1547 Draft Standard For Interconnection)
31 Jan -1 Feb 2002, Arlington, VA.

Held in conjunction with the DOE Distributed Power Program Review [covered in a separate UFTO Note]

Officially established by IEEE Standards and integrated into SCC21, the P1547 project was launched 4/99, and the Working Group (WG) has been on a fast track ever since to get a standard written and accepted by stakeholders in a wide-open consensus process. Relentlessly, meetings have been held 4-6 times a year, around the country.

Complete documentation of 1547 activities can be found at:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547/archives/

An excellent overview and current status as of last Oct can be found in a paper by Dick DeBlasio in the proceedings of the IEEE T&D Expo 2001 (Atlanta). [I have the pdf.]

In the last year, Draft #7 was voted on in March, and #8 by a ‘recirculation’ ballot in October. The voting showed interesting patterns; in particular utilities were divided right down the middle. Other constituencies are clearly in favor. There were two huge flurries of email among WG members debating various points, one just before the Oct ballot, and again just before this meeting. The goal now is to complete Draft #9 and to have a successful ballot on it.

Chairman Dick DeBlasio’s introductory remarks* and charge to the group outlined a key source of the problem–a long list of issues which are most likely not appropriate to deal with in a Technical Standard are nonetheless being brought up repeatedly. People with reservations about impacts on the grid, penetration levels, contractual issues, etc etc. continue, sincerely or otherwise, to raise and debate these issues in the WG. There was also a red herring over a minimum vs. maximum standard — opponents claimed that once enacted 1547 could only be made less restrictive and not more — the truth is that IEEE standards invariably undergo revision time and again, before the ink is dry. A cynic might wonder how much of this concern is sincere, how much is due to misinformation, and how much is simply raw tactics to block DG.

Another complicating factor for the 1547 effort–it is the very first case under IEEE’s newly introduced “open balloting”. This means that any IEEE member can jump in fresh to the process and cast a vote without having been involved in previous discussions. Standards committees have long endured repeat dialogues covering ground that’s been dealt with before, but ballots with anyone able to vote is much more problemmatic.

* This agenda document has the remarks which explain the approach:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547/archives/agendas/Agenda20020131Ext.pdf
* Also see the middle section of Dick’s presentation to the DPP meeting:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/ReviewAnnual01Pres/0102_deblasio.pdf

New Working Groups

IEEE Standard making recognizes the difference between “shall” and “should” and “may”, and produces three types of documents: Standards, Recommended Practices, and Guides, which reflect these different levels of influence. As many of the issues being piled on to 1547 are more appropriately dealt with the second or third type rather than the first, two new working groups have been established and a third has been proposed. The idea is to strip out of 1547 anything that belongs in a different document, e.g. procedures, applications guidance, safety, etc. (In sheer size, 1547 drafts began at over 500 pages; it’s been shrinking but it’s still far above a length appropriate to a IEEE Technical Standard.)

– IEEE SCC21 P1589 — Draft Standard for Conformance Tests Procedures For Equipment Interconnecting Distributed Resources With Electric Power Systems
– IEEE SCC21 P1608 — Draft Application Guide For “IEEE Draft Standard 1547 Interconnecting Distributed Resources With Electric Power Systems”
– Potential new SCC21 PAR for DR communication/control

(P1589 is also a Standard, but it separates issues of testing from the Standard itself. The numbering may be changed to 1547.1, 1547.2 and 1547.3, to reinforce the association among them.)

After DeBlasio’s opening remarks, the opening session of the WG meeting continued with presentations on the new initiatives. Each of these new working groups are recruiting members at the present time.

P1589 (1547.2) Standard on conformance testing will specify the types of tests to be done to demonstrate compliance with 1547.1, in particular at the factory producing equipment and at commissioning. (It would not deal with post-installation testing, which is a matter between business parties involved in a particular setting.) Contact Jim Daley, 973-966-2474, jdaley@asco.com

P1608 (1547.3) Guide is to facilitate use of 1547, by providing characterizations of DG technologies. The development of this document will draw on dozens of existing resources, including 1547 resource materials, the 1001 IEEE standard for storage technology done in the 80’s (and withdrawn in ’98), various state procedures, utility handbooks, and other materials from EEI and EPRI. Contact Dick Friedman, 703-356-1300, nrf@rdcnet.com

New Comm/Control (1547.3) Guide will cover equipment and systems for both remote on onsite monitoring and control of DG, supporting a wide variety of transactions among any DG stakeholders. It will include CHP and coordination with building or enterprise energy management systems. Contact Frank Goodman, 650-855-2872, fgoodman@epri.com

Back to Draft-Writing

The rest of the first session saw the start of a difficult process of reviewing Draft #8, section by section, going over suggested changes, and deciding which materials could be moved into one or the other of the new documents. It recalled the old saying about laws and sausages, with the added fun of wordsmithing by (very large) committee.

Over the next day and 1/2, significant progress was made, with lots of material removed from the Technical and Test sections and the appendices, for inclusion in 1589 and 1608. A “strawman” for Draft #9 is set for the writing committee to tackle in the next two months. (It was also announced that there will be some adds and drops to the writing committee roster.) A full WG meeting in June will, it is hoped be followed soon with the ballot.
—-
Contact: Dick DeBlasio, 303-384-6452, dick_deblasio@nrel.gov
Tom Basso, 303-384-6765, thomas_basso@nrel.gov

(For background about the start of this effort, see:
UFTO Note – IEEE Stds for DR Interconnection, 09 Jul 1999)

DOE Distributed Power Review

/0 Comments/in , /by

DOE Distributed Power Program
& IEEE Interconnection Working Group

29 Jan ?1 Feb 2002, Arlington, VA.

-Tue/Wed = DOE Distributed Power Program
-Thur/Fri = IEEE SCC21 Working Group [Covered in a separate UFTO Note]
(P1547 Draft Standard For Interconnection)

Distributed Power Program Review

^^^
The DPP website has the proceedings (and pdf downloads) for this meeting, and also for the last review meeting held in Golden CO, Oct’01.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/ (box in upper right corner.)
^^^

There is a requirement at DOE for “peer review”, so we’re seeing many of these meetings throughout the year. Last fall there was one for Distributed Energy Resources Program (DER), which includes the Distributed Power Program. (This confusing bit of terminology will be cleared up soon with a name change of the latter to something more accurately reflecting the focus on integration of DR in power systems, not DR itself.) OPT is the new entity formed last year to pull together a number of activities from across EREN.

Here is the line-up of these groups on the org chart:
– DOE
– EREN — Efficiency and Renewable Energy
– OPT — Office of Power Technologies
– DER — Distributed Energy Resources Program
– DPP — Distributed Power Program [name to change]

^^The DER Review was held in DC, 28-30 Nov 2001
http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/conference_01.html

^^Proceedings of the 2001 Hydrogen Program Review are posted at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/docs/30535toc.html.

Other upcoming review meetings:
^^Hydrogen and Fuel Cells — Denver, 6-10 May
(We may try to combine this with an UFTO visit to NREL)
^^Microturbine and Industrial Gas Turbines — Fairfax VA, 12-14 March
http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/microturbines/pdfs/microt_indsturb_peerrev.pdf

———-

Presentations- Introductions and Overviews

Bob Dixon, head of OPT, opened the conference, commenting that September 11 is the main driving force in Washington. Energy security is a high profile part of it, which translates into redoubled interest in DG.

Bill Williams, IEEE-USA government liaison, outlined the many bills in Congress that deal with interconnection at both the bulk and DG level. He also noted that FERC has opened a rule-making for interconnection under 20 MW. (see below).

Richard Brent, Solar Turbines, pleaded the manufacturers’ concerns about there being different policies at every utility, in every state–sometimes different within the same utility. Many of these practices are still based on utility systems and technology of long ago.

Patricia Hoffman, head of DER, commented that just as with any infrastructure, the energy system needs to advance and evolve. One of the roles of DOE is to help bring consistency.

Joe Galdo, who leads the DPP Program, explained DPP’s mission to remove barriers to DG that arise from technology and regulation. The goal is to reduce installation cost, delay and hassle. The strategy is reflected in the array of projects supported, from the IEEE 1547, to system integration, interconnection and control, to institutional and regulatory barriers. A list of subcontracts awarded to date appears at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/contracts.asp
See also “Research Activities” for a good overview:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/sublvl.asp?item=activities

Presentations – Technical Interconnection Standards and Testing

— First up, Dick DeBlasio gave an update on IEEE 1547. See separate UFTO Note on the Working Group meeting.

— Murray Davis of Detroit Edison reported on a study of penetration limits for DG on a distribution feeder. This ranks very high on the list of concerns about widespread deployment of DG. (Davis started with a quick aside that there would be no limit if grids were isolated–he’s submitted a paper to IEEE about this.) They did detailed modeling of two actual feeders using ASPEN and the Distribution WorkStation, and then modeled the impact of various amounts of DG placed at various locations. The striking conclusion, at least for these two particular feeders and for the two variables considered, is that DG penetration (or stiffness ratio, i.e. the amount of the DG compared to the size of the feeder) had no predictive value for when problems (e.g. over/under voltage) would arise. The line length, circuit particulars, and DG device sizes were far more significant. A feeder could accommodate as much as 10 times more total DG if it comes as many small units instead of 1 big one.

— NRECA has an aggressive program to support its members to do fuel cell demonstrations, with training, handbooks, databases, and a users group. Coops view DG as “a solution, not as a problem”. Together coops represent the largest “single” utility in the country, with 34 million customers in 46 states. The handbook will be available on the DOE website in the near future, and many more resources are available only to members of NRECA.
Contact Ed Torrero, 703-907-5518, ed.torrero@nreca.org

— DUIT — Distributed Utility Integration Test – This project is to come up with a plan, including a facility, to do testing of the interaction of DG with the electric system. A key element is the selection of a site or sites for the facility. To that end, a number of sites around the country at utilities and universities were evaluated as candidates. In addition, the Nevada Test Site received particular attention, in view of the extensive inventory of pre-existing buildings and equipment. (The NTS study came up with a conceptual design of a large “pole field” to be used to simulate actual distribution feeders. Rows and rows of utility poles could be patched together to provide everything from a single 30 mile feeder to countless different configurations.) (The DER Test Facility at NREL, which evaluates performance of DG interconnection systems, became operational Dec’01)
Contact Joe Iannucci, Distributed Utility Associates, joe@dua1.com, 925-447-0604.

— Certification Lab Pilot — EPRI-PEAC’s project is to define a path to “certified grid-compatible DER”. They’re writing an accreditation plan and an interconnection handbook. The effort includes actual testing of interconnection standards. For details, see the pdf download^^^, and:
http://www.epri-peac.com/project_opportunities/cert_grid_conn.html
Contact: Tom Key, 865-218-8082, tkey@epri-peac.com

— UL Standard for DG – Underwriters Lab is developing a standard for testing DG equipment, combining appropriate safety requirements with interconnection requirements from IEEE 1547, to produce a DG ANSI Standard that can be used to evaluate utility interconnected DG products for both electrical safety and utility interconnection to address the needs of Electrical AHJs and Utility Interconnection Engineers. This document will be UL 1741, The Standard for Inverters, Converters and Controllers for Use In Independent Power. Contact Tim Zgonena, UL, 847-272-8800 ext. 43051, timothy.p.zgonena@us.ul.com

Presentations – Codes and Regulations

— Regulatory Policy Options for DG — The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) is a non profit that educates and helps state regulators with electric utility regulation. With DOE funding they’re developing a series of issue papers and prototype standards documents for states to use as templates or starting points for DG interconnection, emissions, etc. One interesting observation: RAP suggests that restructuring can actually works against DG, when wholesale markets (ISOs) don’t offer payment for demand reduction, and distribution-only companies become more susceptible to revenue loss. The website has a wealth of material. Of particular interest, policy papers on DG and Electric System reliability, cost methodologies, customer value, and “Accomodating DG in Wholesale Markets”. Particularly note the Draft of a “Model DG Emissions Rule” which is getting a lot of comment. DOE is looking for more input from industry.
http://www.rapmaine.org/distribution.html
Contact: Cheryl Harrington, 207-582-1135, rapmaine@aol.com

— DG and FERC – Dan Adamson has done a detailed report on FERC’s role in DG, including policy directions and numerous cases that have come up over the last 10 years or more. Expect increasing complexity and litigation. Adamson believes that FERC has the authority to assert jurisdiction over interconnection of DG no matter how small, if it involves wholesale transactions, but not retail or self-generation. Last October, FERC announced an ANOPR on generation interconnection. On 11 January, consensus drafting groups submitted a lengthy filing, with big disagreements between transmission owners and small generators. A new strawman proposal was due Feb 1. Expect a NOPR for comment soon; FERC hopes to issue a final rule later this year. Even if FERC does get jurisdiction, they don’t have the staff expertise or resources to regulate at the distribution level, and will likely look to the new RTOs do handle the details. States will still have a big role in any case. And, many bills are before Congress; how they’d interact with FERC’s efforts needs to be watched closely. (There is a case before the Supreme Court that may decide much of this issue.

A detailed report will be made available soon on the DOE/DPP website. See more information at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/news.asp?Item=105
Contact: Dan Adamson, 202-508-6600, danadamson@dwt.com
Also, go to the source: http://www.ferc.fed.us/Electric/gen_inter.htm
[Sign up for FERC’s “intranet” to see more details. Of note–most utilities’ participants seem to be in transmission or regulatory affairs… is your DG effort in the loop?]

— Local Permitting – This presentation gives a sobering picture of the situation at the local level. There are over 44,000 independent building inspection jursidictions. It can take 10 years or more to get a new technology mentioned in codes, and even then it is up to states which vintage of a code it wants to use. (For example, Nevada still uses the 1978 Electrical Code!?) Most Fire and Building inspectors have little or no experience or understanding of hydrogen, methanol, fuel cells, etc. so developers can have a tough time. DOE is sponsoring an Education and Outreach effort, doing workshops around the country for local inspectors and state officials. Contact Ann Marie Borbely-Bartis, 202-586-5196, anne-marie.borbely-bartis@ee.doe.gov

******** Late Breaking News ******
NARUC passed a resolution this week (13 Feb) to support development of a Model DG Rule — See below for particulars. — I can also send the actual text of the resolution on request.
*****************************************

Presentations – System Integration and Control

A series of ongoing projects address implementation and hardware, including demonstrations of whole building systems, enterprise-wide generation management, and aggregation of DG. Others are developing new hardware to increase capabilities, reliablity and cost-effectiveness of interconnection systems. [As this note is getting a bit too long–please see proceedings for the individual presentations, or contact me to discuss.]

Presentations – Industrial DG

This series of projects involve actual installations or market studies of individual industry sectors. Others addressed market potential in NY, CA and Chicago.

– Increasing the Use of DG in the Semiconductor Industry
Barry Cummings, Salt River Project
– Highly Varying Industrial Load
Dr. Robert Kramer, NiSource
– DG Integration with Telecommunications Facility
Doug Peck, Syska & Hennessy
– CHP Integration with Fluid Heating Processes in the Chemical and Refining Sectors
– CHP Installation at 29 Palms Marine Air Ground Combat
Henry Mak, So Cal Gas
– DG Improvements in Industrial Applications
Rich Biljetina, Industrial Center
– Chicago Industrial Energy Plan
John Kelly, Gas Technology Institute
– New York State Industrial DG
Nag Patibandla, NYSERDA
– Industrial DG Market Transformation Tools
Paul Bautista, Onsite Sycom

**************************
Naruc Adopts Resolution Endorsing Development of Model Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

Washington, February 13, 2002
The Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), this week at the NARUC 2002 Winter Meetings in Washington, D.C., endorsed the development of model interconnection agreement and procedures under the direction of its Committees on Electricity, Energy Resources and the Environment and Finance and Technology. Reiterating its support for open access to the nation’s electricity grid, and the importance of distributed energy resources to our energy future, NARUC noted in is resolution (attached) that:

– Coordination among the States could improve the consistency of treatment so important to the efficient integration of distributed energy resources; and

– Increased national consistency would lower entry barriers and enhance business economic efficiency, and,

– The ready availability of NARUC developed model agreements and procedures will aid in balancing those concerns; and the preparation of model interconnection agreement and procedures by NARUC could provide significant support and

– Efficiencies to those States which have yet to address the challenges of distributed energy resources, and the consideration, adaptation or adoption of such models could provide material assistance in achieving the coordination among the states called for by previous resolutions.

The DOE DPP program has previously support state commissions in their efforts to address the new challenges presented by integrating distributed generation into their energy system, and has been supporting this new initiative. The issue was timely at NARUC because of the FERC’s ongoing inquiry into developing a national rule setting forth interconnection procedures and a standard agreement for FERC jurisdictional interconnections, typically at the transmission level. Some controversy may develop where both state commissions and FERC assert jurisdiction of interconnection issues at the distribution level. For additional information contact Gary Nakarado, DP Program NREL, 303-275-3719 or Gary_Nakarado@NREL.Gov

Fluid Mechanical Energy Recovery

/0 Comments/in , /by

A massive amount of energy is wasted in water distribution systems, and HydroLinq, a new company, has come along to make recovery of that energy a reality. It looks like a big opportunity.

The idea is similar to a common practice in the gas pipeline industry, where turbines or expanders are used to reduce pressure from long haul pipelines as the gas enters distribution systems. This not only solves a problem of severe cooling of the gas in expansion valves, it also generates a considerable amount of electricity in the process.

As one water company person said, “we’ve been burning head here forever.” But power generation isn’t usually on the minds of water companies (except at the dams that hold their reservoirs, or when they build their own fossil plants), even though they’re big power users themselves. As far as we can find, the opportunity has never been exploited to any significant degree.

Major hydro-engineering firms have looked at this before, but have chosen not to pursue it, preferring their traditional large-scale projects over lots of little ones. They’ve even expressed interest in supporting HydroLinq in their endeavors. HydroLinq is focusing on units ranging from 100KW to 2 MW.

In most water systems, water arrives in large pipes and at high pressure. This pressure is let down through a pressure release valve, or simply dropped into a regulating basin (reservoir). The idea is to install a mini-hydro turbine and power plant in parallel with the valve or at the end of the pipe to the reservoir, and generate power.

– Huge quantities, sites widely distributed in 1000’s of cities, towns and facilities. A feasibility study for the water district in San Jose CA identified 6 cost-effective sites, totaling 1.6 MW. There are over 2500 water utilities in the US.

– Truly “renewable” (at a time when suppliers are unable to find enough renewable power at any price to meet mandates, e.g. portfolio standards)

– A truly renewable distributed generation technology that can be deployed in urban and industrial settings

– High availability (80-100%)

– Very cost-effective (4-6 ¢/kWh – easily competitive with the grid)

– Rapid payback (18 – 36 months)

– Short leadtime (8-12 months max. Simple infrastructure, and no “earth moving”)

– No environmental or siting issues (except perhaps utility interconnection)

– Built-in likely customer for power (the water company itself)

HydroLinq is rapidly establishing itself as the creator and leader of this new industry, with a complete solution approach which provides feasibility analysis, planning, engineering, installation, and operation. While the idea is simple, implementation is not–no two sites will be exactly alike. HydroLinq has the first-mover advantage, having assembled the key partnerships, know-how, and technology packages (some of it patented) that will enable them to deliver systems faster and cheaper than any new entrant could hope for.

Going further, HydroLinq sees more big opportunities in wastewater systems and many process industries–wherever large quantities of liquids –not just water — undergo pressure drops.

The scope is huge–nationally and internationally. Preliminary estimates put the total available resource just for municipal water systems in the US alone at over 12 GW. HydroLinq recognizes the need to license, partner and joint-venture to establish a presence quickly in as many markets as possible, and is actively seeking both partners and equity investors. One joint venture is already poised to begin the installation this summer of two systems in Australia. Several other projects are in the formative stages, and require working capital. This is not “just” project development; it is the start of an entirely new industry.

A business plan and other materials are available under an NDA.

Contact: Thomas Cripe, President
HydroLinq Energy Corp., Issaquah, WA
425-557-7921, thomas.cripe@hydrolinq.com
http://www.hydrolinq.com

2001 IEEE T&D Expo

/0 Comments/in , /by

Atlanta, 30 Oct – 2Nov 2001

This was a large event, with over 9,000 attendees, 500 exhibitors, and 150 technical papers. Sponsored by the IEEE Power Engineering Society, it focuses strictly on T&D technology, though a number of special panel sessions dealt with big picture questions.

A great deal of information is still available online at:
http://www.ieeet-d.org/
Using the buttons on the left side, “Conference” goes to a complete program listing, and “Exposition” to the exhibitor list, complete with urls for most companies. The technical papers were published on a CD.

–Opening Session

Teddy Püttgen, PES President Elect, opened the conference with the comment that electric utilities continue to be “technology enabled” rather than “technology driven”, but that is changing. Allen Franklin, CEO of the Southern Co, explained that the spinoff of Mirant enables SoCo to focus specifically on the southeast. with its vertically integrated companies, competitive generation, and new services. He sees transmission as the hottest issue, e.g. in Congress. John Rice of GE Power sees big promise in digital networking of generation and T&D. David Stump of ABB expressed a similar vision, applying ABB’s corporate-wide “Industrial IT” strategy to the utility industry. Based on the experience in the UK, Ian Davis of National Grid talked about the need for incentives for T&D investment, efficiency and performance, leading to an emphasis on asset management. Franklin came across as a very traditional utility executive, when he dismissed fuel cells, quoting “30 years ago fuel cells were almost ready. They still are.”

–SuperSession- Deregulation

The presentions were far ranging and exhaustive, and it would take many pages to give the full flavor. Charles Stalone (former FERC commissioner) took a long time to explain the issues before Congress, to strike the right balance between free markets and protections against market power abuse. David Jermain, Anderson Consulting, gave an entertaining review of the history of California’s debacle– based on a very faulty design, state officials made it much worse once things began to unravel. (I have his powerpoint presentation which he kindly sent, along with an ok to share it selectively.) Mark Rossi (Barker, Dunn & Rossi) reviewed utility deregulation around the world. Many countries are doing it, some quite successfully, though no-one gets it right at first. Richard Tabors (Tabors, Caramanis & Assoc) discussed regulation of generators, and pointed out that price volatility is intrinsic to any commodity market–it’s the journalists who renamed it “spikes” in the case of electricity. Finally Paul Addison (SolomonSmith Barney) said that customers really care about total price, not the profits of individual players. Service penalties and bonuses are needed if there is to be any incentive for investment in T&D.

–“How to Become a 3rd World Utility”
In a panel session on T&D Reliability, Jim Burke of ABB outlined 10 steps to reducing reliability.
1. Eliminate experienced engineers; replace with young ones who won’t stay.
2. Don’t participate in standards setting.
3. Lose control over generation and transmission
4. Replace things only when they fail; keep for 50 years or more til there are no spare parts.
5. Buy on price (first cost). Don’t pay for quality.
6. Eliminate R&D
7. Reduce manpower and budgets
8. Overload equipment thus increasing failure rates.
9. Lose control over daily activities–overdo outsourcing.
10. NIMBY – no new T&D but not no growth
[ I can supply a pdf of this paper, from the conference CD]

*********

I visited a number of exhibitors. Here are some highlights.

– Arbiter Systems Inc. http://www.arbiter.com
High precision meters, traceable to NIST.
Can error-correct any meter to be much more accurate.
GPS clocks. Other interesting innovations..used by NxtPhase

– Cannon Technologies http://www.cannontech.com
Monitoring and control of loads and devices
Yukon modular software for distrib autom and demand mgt
eSubstation…low cost ($25K per substn)
Impressive customer list Sell only to utilities.
Started in ’87 w/ purch of a wireless subsidiary of ABB.
Announcing marketing deal with Honeywell soon. (load control thermostats)

– DTE Energy Technologies–“CableWise”
http://www.dtetech.com/technologies/cablewise/
The “only” insitu inservice live cable test capability–uses partial discharge
[[ Is it really true? Has this “holy grail” finally been found?]]

– IFD Corporation http://www.ifdcorporation.com
Clever little mechanical popout device the goes inside distribution transformer to indicate an overpressure has occurred- which means that a fault has occurred inside. Visible from the street. [Sort of like the gadget that tells you your turkey is cooked.]

– IMCORP http://imcorp.uconn.edu
Cable testing products and services. Experts in partial discharge. Company is on campus at Univ Connecticut, led by prominent professor. Took back license from UltraPower (Minn, MN) which closed.

– NxtPhase http://www.nxtphase.com
Optical PT/CT. Looking very strong. {See UFTO Note 22 Jun 2000}

– Power Line Systems http://www.powline.com
T-Line design/management software to 500 utilities worldwide.

– Power Measurement Ltd. http://www.pml.com/
Hi end meters for revenue and PQ monitoring. for large customers. OEM to ABB and Siemens. Sev. new simpler cheaper products.

– Serveron Corp. http://www.serveron.com
Monitoring transformer gas in oil, and battery systems. Received a lot of attention at their booth, and appear to be progressing rapidly. [See UFTO Note 14 May 2001}

=====Substation monitoring=====
(Besides GE, Serveron, Cannon, etc.)

– DoubleTree Systems http://www.dsius.com
comprehensive solution..have installations in China. Systems Control Inc. alumni

– Doble http://www.doble.com/
Has abandoned development of “InSite”. Doing individual modules instead, for later “integration” at IP level. First is for bushings. Will announce a transformer pkg very soon

=====Power Switching=====

ABB – AX1 Air insulated Medium Voltage Switchgear.
1/2 the footprint, cheaper, arcing eliminated, simple installation, low/no maintenance.
http//:www.abb.com — search for AX1

=====Other=====

Pole Plus http://www.poleplus.com
N Amer lic for EdF developed wood pole testing technology and management system. Acceptance is growing. [See UFTO Note 11 Jun 1999]

MiniMax Software Corp. http://www.minimax.net
Video surveillance specifically for substation monitoring, Also a distribution system “stakeout” pen-based computing solution.

The Valley Group. http://www.cat-1.com
Device measures trans. line cable tension directly; Plus nearby measurement of temperature the cable would be if unloaded — gives direct realtime reading of maximum possible loading.

NEETRAC R&D Focused on Power Delivery

/0 Comments/in , /by

While at the IEEE T&D Expo last November, I had the opportunity to meet folks from the National Electric Energy Testing, Research and Applications Center, a not-for-profit at Georgia Tech which focuses exclusively on power delivery technology, including (the integration of) storage and distributed generation. (See below* for a list of services provided–clearly a very practical “nuts and bolts” approach.)

NEETRAC grew out of the R&D Center that Georgia Power transferred to Georgia Tech in 1996, with all its staff and large facilities. Since then, the program scope and constituency have been broadened. The fulltime staff now exceeds 30, in addition to faculty and students who work with them. NEETRAC has access to all kinds of expertise and facilities across the entire school. They are ISO-9001 certified.

Sometimes it’s easier to start with an explanation of what something is not. NEETRAC is not a research management organization. Work is done in-house, and almost nothing is subcontracted out. They are not a funding agency. There is no technology watch function, except as part of scoping studies at the front end of projects. As the name says, they do testing, research, and applications.

Membership includes 23 major utilities (including 3 current UFTO participants, TXU, Xcel, and Exelon) and manufacturers. This number is expected to rise to 25 this year; they will stop at 30. Most pay $105K/year (much larger companies pay more).

Half of this money goes into “baseline projects”, which are selected and overseen by the Management Board. Forty-seven such projects have already been done, for a total cost of $4.2 million — on or below budget. Each project has a technical advisory committee, which usually meets by teleconference. There is a total commitment to the idea that members are to determine project content and program direction.

The other half of the money is placed directly into individual proprietary projects for the individual members (IP is very carefully protected). There is also about $1 million/year in contract research performed for other (nonmember) clients.

A new program of “Focused Initiatives” will offer non-members the chance to participate, though at 2.5 times the member cost. The proposal for the first such Initiative will appear in July, for Cable Diagnostics. NEETRAC already is doing a lot of work (for its members only) on Cables, including a test facility with cables with known defects. Vendors are invited to test and demonstrate their equipment. There are similar programs for other components.

Hans (Teddy) Püttgen, Director*
404-894-2927 hans.puttgen@ee.gatech.edu

http://www.neetrac.gatech.edu

(*Dr. Püttgen is also the new President-Elect of the IEEE Power Engineering Society.)

=========

*Services provided by NEETRAC:

-Transmission and Distribution Component Failure Investigation
-Incoming Material Inspection for Quality Control Program
-High Voltager Testing of Transmission and Distribution Components
-Connector Evaluation
-Insulator Testing
-Testing of Aerial Personnel Devices
-Soil Thermal Property Measurements
-Lighting Fixture Evaluation
-Testing of Routine Utility Devices
-Frequency Characterization
-Transfer Functions
-Line Hardware Evaluation
-Thermal Evaluation
-Electric/Hybrid vehicle testing & research
-Mechanical Testing
-Underground Cable Pulling
-Fault Current Testing
-Performance Evaluation of Overhead Conductor and Accessories
-Vibration-damper Testing HV 60Hz Watts Loss
-Measurements Power Cable and Accessory Evaluation
-Weathering and Corrosion Evaluation

UFTO Notes 2001

/0 Comments/in , /by

06 Dec 2001 UFTO Note – JTEC New SolidState Heat to Electricity
05 Dec 2001 UFTO Note – Nickel Hydrogen Battery Ready for Commercialization
28 Nov 2001 UFTO Note – Eneco Announces Direct Heat-to-Electricity Device
29 Oct 2001 UFTO Note – CO,CO2 Removal from reformate H2
10 Oct 2001 UFTO Note – Power Quality 2001
28 Sep 2001 UFTO Note – Investment Bankers Talk Energy Technology
22 Aug 2001 UFTO Note – EPRI Distributed Resources Venture Forum
02 Aug 2001 UFTO Note – Small Modular Biopower System
09 Jul 2001 UFTO Note – Hologram PV Windows
14 May 2001 UFTO Note – On-Line Transformer and Battery Monitoring
11 May 2001 UFTO Note – Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PMBR)
22 Mar 2001 UFTO Note – RAMGEN Update
05 Mar 2001 UFTO Note – Fluid Dialysis Makes Oils Cleaner Than New
05 Mar 2001 UFTO Note – Zero Emission Engine
25 Feb 2001 UFTO Note – New Stirling Engine with Higher Temperature, Efficiency
16 Feb 2001 UFTO Note – On Site Hydrogen for Generator Cooling
02 Feb 2001 UFTO Note – AET – Solar Hot Water
31 Jan 2001 UFTO Note – Fuel Cell info; DOE DP Program
23 Jan 2001 UFTO Note – Fuel Cell Seminar, CADER/DPCA

Nickel Hydrogen Battery Ready for Commercialization

/0 Comments/in , /by

UFTO first reported on this technology almost 6 years ago, and issued updates in Oct ’96 and Jan ’98.
================================
UFTO Bulletin #16 December 18, 1995

Nickel Hydrogen Batteries have been used in space for decades, and are known for extreme reliability. Ergenics Inc. has basic patents for a “segmented Ni H battery” concept that should make it practical for terrestial uses. They’re building a prototype for ARPA for a military hybrid vehicle, and can make them as small as a laptop computer battery.

It uses metal hydride to store the hydrogen outside the battery cell, thus eliminating self-discharge, most if not all safety concerns, and heat transfer issues. Most important, it’s low pressure, unlike usual Ni H batteries, which require a high pressure tank. A key advantage over Ni metal-hydride batteries is long life because the hydride is isolated from corrosion producing chemicals of the battery cell. …. The company … [hasn’t] yet focused on applications in UPS and utility storage systems. This may turn out to be quite competitive with the other forms of storage that everyone is working so hard on, and it could be an opportunity for a strategic technology edge. Call me for more info.
================================

Now at long last, a new company, ElectraStor, has licensed the Ergenics technology, made substantial improvements, and is positioned to manufacture it, initially in their own pilot production facility. The plan is then expand manufacturing, and/or to sublicense the technology and manufacturing know-how worldwide. Originally focused on hybrid vehicle batteries, ElectraStor is also now addressing applications in stationary electric power storage, where a convincing case is made for major cost and performance advantages, particularly in applications requiring high power and quick response.

Here is a portion of ElectraStor’s Executive Summary:

ElectraStor LLC owns a breakthough rechargable low pressure Nickel-Hydrogen “fuel cell battery” technology. This technology has been extensively validated and is ready for commercial production. Serious discussions are ongoing with substantial corporations and government agencies worldwide, including the FTA, Siemens, Fiat, MAN, the Italian government, DaimlerChrysler, Altra, Mercedes EvoBus and others. The Company is raising US$12M to fund a profitable pilot plant, bring the company to profitability, and perform R&D on new products.

Advantages of ElectraStor NiH Batteries: Phenomenal “life of the vehicle” cycle life, zero self-discharge, extraordinary tolerance to overcharge and over-discharge, 100% depth of discharge capability, low cost, low-pressure, high specific power, no maintenance, all-weather operation and a high degree of safety compared to competition. ElectraStor batteries have two to five times the specific power of NiMH and lead acid products and have specific energy comparable to Li-ion and Li-polymer products, while offering far greater tolerance to high mechanical, thermal and electrical stresses.

The Technology: ElectraStor NiH batteries combine a bipolar fuel cell stack with a closed loop supply of low pressure hydrogen stored in a segmented hydride with a limited supply of oxygen stored in a nickel hydroxide, which is regenerated using electricity during recharge. Because it separates hydrogen storage from the wet aspect of the battery, the chemical reaction is only a catalyst and no longer causes degradation of the battery parts, as remains the case in the NiMH design. This enables the ElectraStor battery to be cycled almost indefinitely without degradation or failure.

Intellectual Property: ElectraStor holds an exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable license to technology developed by Ergenics, together with any and all improvements and extensions to this technology. The patent portfolio is extensive, broad and deep. R&D is ongoing, both by Ergenics and ElectraStor, and further patents are in the immediate pipeline.

Time to Market: The NiH battery is ready for production. ElectraStor has teamed with the FTA and the Belcan Corporation (the largest engineering and technology services organization in Ohio, with revenues over $400M) to construct the pilot plant. The plant will be up and running at full capacity within seven months of funding. The plant’s flexible manufacturing line will produce batteries both for electric and hybrid vehicles as well as a variety of further mobile and stationary applications.

Validation of ElectraStor Technology: Testing is ongoing, both by independent third parties and by our Corporate and Government partners, including the City of Pittsburgh, Mass., the Federal Transit Authority (FTA), the Italian Government, Siemens, Fiat, MAN, DaimlerChrysler and others.

http://www.electrastor.com
(this website will be updated by mid December)

Please contact me for more information and appropriate introductions.

Eneco Announces Direct Heat-to-Electricity Device

/0 Comments/in , /by

ENECO, a small company in Salt Lake City that we’ve known for over 5 years, has kept a very low profile until this week, when it burst into the news with an announcement, jointly with MIT, of a solid state device that converts heat directly to electricity at higher efficiency than thermoelectric devices. With considerable luck, they landed a feature article in Tuesday’s NY Times weekly Technology section:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/27/technology/27HEAT.html

They had given the NY Times a 24 hour head start before issuing a major press release, to coincide with one from MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/electricitydevice.html

The company’s own materials released Tuesday can be found at their website:
http://www.eneco-usa.com/media.html

A technical paper was presented at a poster session Materials Research Society’s fall meeting in Boston this week, but copies, and preprints of other papers submitted to major technical journals, won’t be available the publications release them.

The technology is said to combine both the thermoelectric effect and the thermionic effect into one device. Electrons boil off the emitter layer on the hot side, adding to the current from the thermoelectric effect. Instead of a vacuum gap, as in standard thermionic devices, there is a semiconductor layer thermally isolating the hot side from the cold side.

They claim to have already demonstrated efficiencies of 17%, compared with 10% which is the best thermoelectrics can do, and at 250-300 C, not the 1100 C that thermionics converters require.

The company very recently hired a new CEO, a veteran of the semiconductor industry. They expect to do a new private offering in the first quarter of 2002.

I have a small investment in the company, and am well acquainted with the principals. If you would like to make contact I would be pleased to make a personal introduction.