ACCC COND

Optimising Energy Efficiency in Bare Overhead Lines:

Optimising Energy Efficiency in Bare Overhead Lines An Introduction of the New Technology of Carbon Fibre Composite Conductors and using ACCC conductors to reduce losses and increase throughput Presented by Dominic Majendie, V.P. International Marketing, CTC Cable Corporation Tunis, Tunisia – December 15, 2009

The Evolution of Conductors:

The Evolution of Conductors ACSR “Lion” 238mm 2 Higher Operating Temperature = Increased Ampacity More conductive material with less conductivity, = net improvement over ACSR 1. 2. 3a. GAP 265mm 2 ACSS “Hen” 242 mm 2 AAAC “Upas” 362mm 2 Traditional Technology: ACSR Invar reinforced e.g.: 225 mm 2 ACCR 322mm 2 3b. High Temperature with Low SAG Aim = to maximizes the Conductive Material for LOWER LOSSES Comparison based on similar weight/strength of various conductors Requires Improvement to conductivity But: alloys are less efficient conductors and so less efficient (Al equivalent 305 mm 2 )

High Temperature Considerations:

High Temperature Considerations Loss of Strength Aluminium softens as it anneals at higher temperatures. Knee Point As aluminium contributes to the strength of the conductor it also contributes to an increased sag profile, pulling the conductor lower. Increased losses I 2 r losses will increase exponentially with temperature The nature of aluminium poses 3 critical problems to the use of aluminium conductors at high temperatures:

Loss of Strength: The Choice of Aluminium:

Loss of Strength: The Choice of Aluminium Loss of Strength Aluminium softens as it anneals at higher temperatures. To counteract this 2 broad choices are available: Pre–annealing and configuring the ‘loss’ of strength in the design of the conductor Increases conductivity (over hard drawn Al) : (63% IACS) Use of HT alloys: Al Zr systems, TAL Type Reduces conductivity (over hard drawn Al) (KTAL 55% - TAL 60% IACS)

Lowering Kneepoint:

Lowering Kneepoint Knee Point As aluminium contributes to the strength of the conductor it also contributes to an increased sag profile, pulling the conductor lower. Lower Kneepoint by design: GAP Type Kneepoint is fixed by the stringing method: The conductor is strung with the core under tension and the aluminium not Lower Kneepoint from annealing: ACSS, ACCC Softer aluminium is stretched, lowering kneepoint The conductor is strung by either (i) overtensionning to initially stretch the Al or (ii) allowing the softer aluminium to give up load to the core

Combating Increased Losses:

Combating Increased Losses Increased losses I 2 r losses will increase considerably with temperature increases The Design Dilemma: aluminium strength or aluminium conductivity Heat Resistant Low strength annealed aluminium = 63% IACS Heat Resistant aluminium zirconium alloys = KTAL 55% IACS TAL 60% IACS Non Heat Resistant Aluminium Alloy used in AAAC = 53 – possibly 56% IACS

The Push Towards Efficiency:

The Push Towards Efficiency ACSR “Lion” 238mm 2 Higher Operating Temperature = Increased Ampacity More conductive material with less conductivity, = net improvement over ACSR 1. 2. 3a. GAP 265mm 2 ACSS “Hen” 242 mm 2 AAAC “Upas” 362mm 2 Traditional Technology: ACSR Invar reinforced e.g.: 225 mm 2 ACCR 322mm 2 3b. High Temperature with Low SAG Comparison based on similar weight/strength of various conductors * ACCR may suffer from cyclical degradation (Al equivalent 305 mm 2 ) Higher Current, Lower Temperature, prone to creep

Conductivity the No. 1 Goal:

Fundamentally Increasing conductivity comes with increasing conductive material in the cross sectional area The ACCC core: Increases strength: (lighter & stronger than steel) Further Increases Conductivity Core smaller than steel equivalent allows 28% more Al than ACSR Virtually eliminates line Sag Conductivity the No. 1 Goal Trapezoidal wires: increase the aluminium profile; which increases conductivity. ACSS Swannee : 486 mm 2 (959.6 kcmil) 1,960 Kg/km ACCC ‘Drake’ : 516.9mm 2 (1020 kcmil ) 1,558 Kg/km ACSR or ACSS Drake : concentric round 403 mm 2 (795 kcmil) 1,627 Kg/km Introduction of trapezoidal wire improves conductor area Introduction of carbon fibre core to increase conductor to weight ratio

Carbon Fibre Cored Conductors:

Carbon Fibre Cored Conductors ACCC Aluminium Conductor Composite Reinforced A Known Solution but Initially Abandoned Several research programmes investigated the use of carbon as a strength core worldwide – without success Major problems: Reaction of carbon and aluminium Susceptibility of carbon fibre composites to crushing when jointing Introduction of 1 st patented solution in 2004-5

ACCC Conductor Description:

ACCC Conductor Description The idea of a carbon fibre supported conductor is old, but was abandoned due to carbon aluminium corrosion and impractical stringing. 28% More Aluminum = Greater Capacity, Reduced Losses, & Cooler Temps 25% stronger & 60% lighter vs. traditional steel core = fewer or lower structures Lower Coefficient of Thermal Expansion = Less Sag at Higher Temperatures The ACCC design uses: A protective layer over the carbon to shield it from corrosion; and Innovative joints that protect the composite when installing

A Combination of Strengths:

A Combination of Strengths ACSR “Lion” 238mm 2 AAAC “Upas” 362mm 2 Al Equivalent 305 mm 2 Traditional technology: ACSR Steel Core wound with Aluminium ACSS “Hen” 242mm 2 1. 2. 3a. GAP 265mm 2 Steel reinforced Various mm 2 ACCR 322mm 2 3b. ACCC 360 mm 2 Al Equivalent 381 mm 2 High Temperature with Low SAG Maximize Conductive Material for LOW LOSSES

Comparison of Various Conductors:

Comparison of Various Conductors ACSR Lion ACSS Hen INVAR Hen GAP 265 ACCR 636-T16 AAAC Upas ACCC 380 Amsterdam Area of Al (mm 2 ) 238 242 225 265 322 362 369 Outside Diameter (mm) 22.30 22.43 21.21 22.61 25.15 24.71 23.55 Weight (kg/km) 1,095 1,111 1,190 1,095 1,068 1,000 1,085 RTS (kN) 100 93 110 108 112 105 110 AC-Resistance at 75 o C (ohms/km) 0.1448 0.1391 0.1482 0.1358 0.1048 0.1096 0.0930 Gross Power @1000 Amps (MW) 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 Loss Power @1000 Amps (MW) 30.4 29.7 32.5 28.5 20.2 21.2 17.6 Net Power @1000 Amps (MW) 351 351 349 353 361 360 363 Conductor Temp @1000 Amps ( o C) 133 130 142 126 96 100 90 Initial Tension @15 o C (kN) 20.1 18.7 22 21.5 22.3 20.9 24.4 Current (ampacity) @75 o C 695 710 678 721 844 821 881 Current (ampacity) @100 o C 846 860 821 873 1,057 1,001 1,067 Current (ampacity) @175 o C 1159 1,165 1,112 1,186 1,394 1376 1,466 Sag: 400m span @ 20% RTS@1000A (m) 14.32 14.51 12.07 13.75 11.93 13.72 9.84 Sag: 400m span @ 20% RTS@75 o C (m) 13.12 13.38 11.60 12.26 11.67 12.55 9.80 Sag: 400m span @ 20% RTS@100 o C (m) 13.65 13.90 11.77 13.13 11.97 13.73 9.86 Sag: 400m span @ 20% RTS@175 o C (m) 15.15 15.39 12.29 14.70 12.85 16.90 10.03 Test Condition: Length=60km, 1 circuit, Voltage=220kv , Ambient Temp=20 o C, Stringing Temp=15 o C, wind speed=0.60m/sec, elevation=50m, Latitude=48 o N, Azimuth=E-W, absorptive=0.6, emissitivity=0.6

Conductor Performance:

Conductor Performance With most technologies you chose between increasing throughput (HTLS) or increasing efficiency (AAAC)

Conductor Performance:

Conductor Performance ACCC Conductors combine Efficiency and Increased Current Carrying Capacity in a proven ‘Green Solution’

THE GOAL Illustrated: Performance Comparison:

THE GOAL Illustrated: Performance Comparison TARGET CURRENT = 750 Amps Type Size (mm 2 ) R-AC @ 75 o C Ohms/km Temp ( o C) @ target current Gross Power (MW) Power Loss (MW) Net Power (MW) Cost of Losses over 1 year ($M) Cost of not using ACCC 1 year ($M) ACSR Lion 238 0.01448 83 286 15.0 271 6.57 $2.63 ACSS Hen 242 0.13911 81 286 14.4 272 6.31 $2.37 Invar Hen 225 0.14822 87 286 15.6 270 6.83 $2.89 GAP 265 265 0.13579 79 286 13.9 272 6.09 $2.15 AAAC Upas 362 0.10963 67 286 10.8 275 4.73 $0.79 ACCC 380 369 0.09298 61 286 9.0 277 3.94 $0.00 TARGET CURRENT = 1,350 Amps Type Size (mm 2 ) R-AC @ 75 o C Ohms/km Temp ( o C) @ target current Gross Power (MW) Power Loss (MW) Net Power (MW) Cost of Losses over 1 yr ($M) Cost of not using ACCC 1 year ($M) ACSR Lion 238 0.01448 236 514 69.7 444 30.53 $13.67 ACSS Hen 242 0.13911 236 514 70.3 444 30.79 $13.93 Invar Hen 225 0.14822 259 514 77.8 436 34.08 $17.21 GAP 265 265 0.13579 265 514 66.6 447 29.17 $12.31 AAAC Upas 362 0.10963 169 514 45.8 468 20.06 $3.20 ACCC 380 369 0.09298 153 514 38.5 476 16.86 $0.00 Test Condition: Length=60km, 1 circuit, Voltage=220kv, Ambient Temp=20 o C, Stringing Temp=15 o C, wind speed=0.60m/sec, elevation=50m, Latitude=48 o N, Azimuth=E-W, absorptive=0.6, emissitivity=0.6 Generation cost assumption ($/kwh) $0.10 Usage Loading at (% of target current): 50%

Six + Years of ACCC Conductor Testing:

Six + Years of ACCC Conductor Testing Core Testing: 2.1.1 Tensile Testing 2.1.2 Flexural, Bending & Shear Tests 2.1.3 Sustained Load Tests 2.1.4 Tg Tests 2.1.5 CTE Measurements 2.1.6 Shear Testing 2.1.7 Impact and Crush Testing 2.1.8 Torsion Testing 2.1.9 Notched Degradation Testing 2.1.10 Moisture Resistance Testing 2.1.11 Long Term Thermal Testing 2.1.12 Sustained Load Thermal Testing 2.1.13 Cyclic Thermal Testing 2.1.14 Specific Heat Capacity Testing 2.1.15 High Temperature Short Duration 2.1.16 High Temperature Core Testing 2.1.17 Thermal Oxidation Testing 2.1.18 Brittle Fracture Testing 2.1.19 UV Testing 2.1.20 Salt Fog Exposure Tests 2.1.21 Creep Tests 2.1.22 Stress Strain Testing 2.1.24 Micrographic Analysis 2.1.25 Dye Penetrant Testing 2.1.26 High Temperature Shear Testing 2.1.27 Low Temperature Shear Testing Mechanical Conductor Testing: 2.2.28 Stress Strain Testing 2.2.29 Creep Testing 2.2.30 Aeolian Vibration Testing 2.2.31 Galloping Tests 2.2.32 Self Damping Tests 2.2.33 Radial Impact and Crush Tests 2.2.34 Turning Angle Tests 2.2.35 Torsion Tests 2.2.36 High Temperature Sag Tests 2.2.37 High Temperature Sustained Load 2.2.38 High Temperature Cyclic Load Tests 2.2.39 Cyclic Ice Load Tests 2.2.40 Sheave Wheel Tests 2.2.41 Ultimate Strength Tests 2.2.42 Cyclic Thermo-Mechanical Testing 2.2.43 Combined Cyclic Load Testing 2.2.44 Conductor Comparison Testing Electrical Conductor Testing: 2.3.45 Resistivity Testing 2.3.46 Power Loss Comparison Testing 2.3.47 Ampacity 2.3.48 EMF Measurements 2.3.49 Impedance Comparison Testing 2.3.50 Corona Testing 2.3.51 Radio Noise Testing 2.3.52 Short Circuit Testing 2.3.53 Lightning Strike Testing 2.3.54 Ultra High Voltage AC & DC Testing Systems & Hardware Testing: 2.4.55 Current Cycle Testing 2.4.56 Sustained Load Testing 2.4.57 Ultimate Assembly Strength Testing 2.4.58 Salt Fog Emersion Testing 2.4.60 Static Heat Tests 2.4.61 Suspension Clamp Testing 2.4.62 Thermo-Mechanical Testing 2.4.63 Cyclic Load Testing Field Testing: 2.5.64 Ambient Temperature 2.5.65 Tension, Sag, and Clearance 2.5.66 Conductor Temperature 2.5.67 Electric Current 2.5.68 Wind Speed and Direction 2.5.69 Solar Radiation 2.5.70 Rainfall 2.5.71 Ice Buildup 2.5.72 Splice Resistance 2.5.73 Infrared Measurements 2.5.74 Corona Observations 2.5.75 Electric and Magnetic Fields 2.5.76 Wind and Ice Load Measurements 2.5.77 Vibration Monitoring 2.5.78 Typhoon Test

Slide 17:

50% RTS 25% RTS Alpha Star Longevity Analysis

ACCC: a world wide solution:

ACCC: a world wide solution US and Canada: Currently Manufacturing Belgium (EC): Currently Manufacturing China: Currently Manufacturing Middle East: Midal Cables Ltd. (Bahrain) Indonesia (1): Currently Manufacturing Indonesia (2): Currently Manufacturing Korea: Evaluating Potential Baltic States, Russia: Exploring Potential Colombia: Exploring Potential Manufactured by Qualified Licensed Conductor Manufacturers

Installation Experience > 8,500 Conductor km worldwide:

Installation Experience > 8,500 Conductor km worldwide Countries: USA China Poland Spain Portugal Mexico Chile Indonesia Belgium Germany South Africa France (test) UK (test) Brazil (test) US Utilities: AEP APS PacifiCorp Sierra Pacific (NV Energy) National Grid US Austin Energy Xcel Energy MI PUD KS PUD KAMO OG&E Ozark Electric WAPA Over 15,000 Dead-Ends & Splices In-Service

Emission Reduction Potential (e.g. California):

Emission Reduction Potential (e.g. California) California consumes over 300,000 gigawatt hours of electricity per annum*; This costs approximately US$32 billion per year; Approximately 9% of all electricity is lost to transmission and distribution inefficiencies; Of this, around 2-3% relate to transmission line losses; By using ACCC conductors line losses would be reduced by around 35% : saving ~US$224,000,000 every year; Being a reduction of 2,328,242 metric tones of CO 2 ; Equivalent to taking 447,740 cars off the road. *Source: California Public Utility Commission 2008

The Real Cost of Reducing Emissions:

* (Source: US Dept of Energy 2005 and 2007 studies) Replacement of an “unconstrained” Drake ACSR transmission line with ACCC conductor Analysis assumes average fossil fuel emission rate of 1.88 pounds of CO 2 per kWh.* Only up front capital cost considered and not O&M Figures are capacity factor adjusted ACCC conductors are quick to install: Nuclear - 10 years Wind - 3 years Solar - 3 years ACCC - 3 to 6 months Annual Reduction of Metric Tons CO 2 Per $1 Million of Up Front Capital Investment The Real Cost of Reducing Emissions Spend $1 million and reduce CO 2 emissions by 1,750 metric tons Spend $1 million and reduce CO 2 emissions by 4,500 metric tons 2-1/2 times more CO 2 savings

Summary of ACCC Conductor Advantages:

Summary of ACCC Conductor Advantages With 28% more annealed aluminium in a trapezoidal configuration the ACCC conductor of the same diameter as ACSR, can doubles the current (ampacity) rating; Higher operating efficiency reduces line losses and their associated emissions by more than 35%, resulting in more power delivered and lower power generation costs ACCC conductors use a patented carbon/glass/thermoset resin core that provides high strength and reduced high temperature sag Can Re-conductor existing pathways without structural modifications and reduce Capital Expense on new lines ACCC conductor can be operated efficiently at high temperatures - 175 o C Uses conventional installation methods, tools, and mostly conventional hardware - no special tools and little special training Lower initial sag allows for lowering tensioning on weaker towers or increasing span distance between towers in new lines and fewer towers will lower construction costs Resists environmental degradation - will not rust, corrode, or cause electrolysis with aluminium conductors or components Greater core elasticity reduces tower loading under heavy ice and wind loads Green-house tax credits may be available while reducing compliance costs