View
2.346
Download
4
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Potentials & Impacts of Energy-Efficient DTs
Strategies for development and diffusion of
Energy Efficient DistributionTransformers
January 2006 - June 2008
2
Fleet
Fleet EU-27
Market EU-27
pcs MVA pcs MVA
Distribution sector oil*
< 400 kVA 73% 34% 66% 26%
≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 23% 48% 27% 45%
> 630 kVA 3% 17% 7% 29%
Total distribution sector3 676 315
79% 910 515
66%85 486
61%27 336
48%
industry oil
< 400 kVA 62% 20% 62% 20%
≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 23% 27% 22% 28%
> 630 kVA 16% 52% 16% 52%
Total industry oil801 840
17%329 569
24%38 011
27%15 452
27%
industry dry
< 400 kVA 23% 9% 16% 4%
≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 40% 28% 34% 20%
> 630 kVA 38% 63% 50% 76%
Total industry dry 174 017
4%143 904
10%16 132
12%14 478
25%
4 652 172 1 383 988 139 628 57 266* dry type transformer utility population is estimated at marginal low level (~ 1% of utility fleet)
3
Fleet detailedDistribution transformer EU27 + Norway distribution sector population
70,0 80,0
7,0
57,2
432,8
69,1
8,0
209,2
80,0
726,0
150,0
56,4 58,3
360,0
10,3 3,5 7,8 2,2
74,9
123,9
237,6
66,0
124,8
11,0 23,5
683,7
36,8 30,2
338
248 248 248
344
312
248
369
248
192
166
299
116
248 248 248 248 247
320306
172
248 253 248 248234
248 248
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO
Uti
litie
s -
fle
et
in t
ho
us
an
d u
nit
s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
av
era
ge
ra
tin
g k
VA
Utility population thousand pcs
Utility - Average rating (size) kVA
4
Losses EU27
utility oil ΣPo fleet 15973 ΣPo market 348
ΣPk fleet 6000 ΣPk market 172
ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 27,3% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 33,0%
industry oil ΣPo fleet 5544 ΣPo market 264
ΣPk fleet 2167 ΣPk market 95
ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 28,1% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 26,5%
industry dry ΣPo fleet 2589 ΣPo market 269
ΣPk fleet 1129 ΣPk market 120
ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 30,4% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 30,9%
Ptotal 33402 Ptotal 1269
5
Losses detailed
Distribution sector distribution transformers losses - EU27 + Norway
70 14111
91
1124
9717
458
118
1400
16368 78
471
22 8 16 6
222 204 18597
277
22 46
682
410 462306
3627
293
1646
425
4079
619
391
2026
595
852
1172
399
769
3631
60 49
220 18143 63 223 79 22 59 18 69 144
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO
Utility - No load losses GWh
Utility - Load losses GWh
Utility - Total losses GWh
6
Operating efficiency
Efficiency of distribution sector transformer population and market
98,38%98,43%
98,73%
98,43%
98,77%
98,40%
98,75%
98,06%
98,51%
98,72%
98,33%
98,05%
97,84%
98,47%98,40%
98,16%
98,78%
98,17%
98,36%
98,87%
98,37% 98,35%
98,81%
98,66%98,69%
98,77%
99,11%
99,04%
98,65%
98,82%
98,96%
98,68%
98,40%
98,95%
98,30%
98,58%
98,83%
98,73%
98,60%
98,89%
98,71%
98,57%
99,09%
98,56%98,53%
98,70%
99,08%
98,91%98,95%
98,38%98,38%
97,50%
98,10%
98,77%98,77%
98,46%
98,79%
98,36%
97,50%
97,70%
97,90%
98,10%
98,30%
98,50%
98,70%
98,90%
99,10%
99,30%
EU25 AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO
Utility population - Efficiency %
Utility market - Efficiency %
7
Rated losses referred to AC’ (CoCk)
Proportions of rated losses against AC' (HD428) / CoCk (EN50464)
121%
132%130%
144%
109%108%103%
96%
82%
97%101%
95%
103%
90%
95% 94% 94%90%
78%
132%138%
140%
155%152%
109%
115%
106%
111%
106%
152% 152%
110%
155%152%
100%
115%
100%
112%
100%
111%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
100 400 630 1 000 2 500kVA rating
Utility fleet Po Utility fleet Pk Utility market Po Utility market Pk
Industry oil fleet Po Industry oil fleet Pk Industry oil market Po Industry oil market Pk
8
Poland - No load losses relative Po/Bo (~C'-15%, HD 428)
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
1965 1970-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005
Years100 160 250 400 630 Average
Czech - No load losses relative Po/Bo (~C'-15%, HD 428)
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 1970 1973 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 Years
100 kVA
160 kVA
250 kVA
400 kVA
630 kVA
average Po
No load losses / age
9
Load losses / agePoland - Load losses relative, Pk/Ck (A, HD 428)
0,80
0,90
1,00
1,10
1,20
1,30
1,40
1,50
1965 1970-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005
Years100 160 250 400 630 Average
Czech - Load losses relative, Pk/Ck (A, HD 428)
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
1,80
2,00
1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 1970 1973 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 Years
100 kVA
160 kVA
250 kVA
400 kVA
630 kVA
average Pk
10
Age/ ratingPoland - age / population / rating
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
>30 20-29 15-19 10-14 5-9 1-4
Age [years]63 100 160 250 400 630
Poland - age / population all ratings (weighted) summary
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
>30 20-29 15-19 10-14 5-9 1-4Age [years]
11
Extra losses
The SEEDT calculation indicates level to total distribution transformers losses in EU-27 at level of about 33,5 TWh. This calculation has however completely ignored two aspects:
Extra losses due to reactive power losses in distribution transformers which have influence on active power losses in the network
Extra losses due to harmonics (voltage and current distortion)
12
Technical conclusion European distribution transformer fleet and market is dominated by traditional technologies.
These technologies have certain limits but enable substantial losses reduction when compared to average transformer market efficiency level.
Within the technology thus far developed there are sufficient measures to produce cost efficient transformers which have both no-load and load losses by about 30% lower than EU average level AC’ according to HD 428. Transformer manufacturers may now very dynamically shape transformer designs to accommodate life cycle optimum cost.
We are a little bit sceptical about superconducting technology in distribution transformers. These should be rather simple and robust machines requiring minimum maintenance, diagnostic etc. We are not convinced that efficiency gains justify price user has to pay for this technology and probably additional installation & maintenance. We are however impressed by overall development of this technology, which in case of larger transformers may very well and very soon become very attractive solution.
NEXT – Amorphous transformers
13
Total technical potentials in 2004
What part of potential can be realised by 2025? 4 energy efficiency scenarios by SEEDT project
21.973
7.7113.718
12.606
4.769
1.165
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
Electricity distributioncompanies
Industry-oil Industry-dry
GW
h/y
ear
Electricity losses Saving potential
„Static“ potential (BAT): Electricity distribution
companies: 57.4 % Industry - oil: 61.8 % Industry - dry: 31.3 % Total: 55.5%
(18.5 TWh/year)
14
Important assumptions for calculating electricity saving potentials until 2025 Baselines for electricity system development:
PRIMES-Trends (2006): 3,886 TWh/year final electricity demand in 2025
PRIMES-EERES (2006): 2,877 TWh/year final electricity demand in 2025
Baseline for investment in transformers until 2025: 2004 market behaviour: frozen efficiency Replacing the oldest (worst) DTs first
15
Age distribution of transformer losses of electricity distribution companies in EU-25, increasingly
13,90% 21,46%
27,23% 34,84%
43,26%
52,98%
64,04%
75,24%
87,37%
2,29% 5,45% 9,71%
21,85% 30,25%
38,94% 47,87%
58,07%
69,99%
83,74%
8,09% 3,48%
15,24%
1,48% 3,57% 6,38% 10,03% 14,68%
20,98% 29,14%
39,20%
51,27%
65,39%
81,69%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1945- 1949
1950- 1954
1955- 1959
1960- 1964
1965- 1969
1970- 1974
1975- 1979
1980- 1984
1985- 1989
1990- 1994
1995- 1999
2000- 2004
Σ Po increasingly
Σ Pk increasingly
Population increasingly
16
Potentials - distribution companies
Savings distribution companies GWh
AoBo 05 T AoBo 10 T
AoBo 05 EAoBo 10 E
AMBk 05 T
AMBk 10 TAMBk 05 E
AMBk 10 E
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 MAX
17
Potentials - industryIndustry oil savings GWh
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 MAX
AoBk 05
AoBk 10
AoBo 05
AoBo 10
AMBk+05
AMBk+10
AMBk 05
AMBk 10
Dry savings GWh
HD538 T 10
HD538 E 10
[-10%] T 10
[-20%] T 05
[-20%] T 10
[-20%] E 05
[-20%/-40%] T 05
[-20%/-40%] T 10[-20%/-40%] E 05
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025=MAX
18
Economic impact of scenarios Economic impact on electricity distribution
companies strongly depends on regulatory scheme (and interest rate)
Recent price developments have led to amorphous transformers being more competitive
Results crucially depend on assumptions about transformer price relations, interest rate, assumed lifetimes and expected price developments (steel, copper, electricity)
19
Environmental impact of scenarios in 2025 in EU-27 (Mio t CO2eq./year)Baseline: Frozen efficiency (2004 market losses)
Policies and measures leading to first savings in 2010
General development of electricity system
Scenario 1oil: AoBk / dry: HD 538
Scenario 2oil: AoAk / dry: HD538 LL ./. 10%,NLL ./. 10%
Scenario 3oil: Ao./.49%
Bk+8% / dry: HD538 LL ./. 20%,NLL ./. 20%
Scenario 4oil: Ao./.49%
Bk / dry: HD538 LL ./. 10%
NLL ./. 40%
PRIMES Trends
1.9 2.3 3.4 3.7
PRIMES EE/RES
1.5 1.7 2.5 2.7
20
Conclusions Static technical electricity saving potential in 2004: 18.5 TWh/year
(55.5 % of current DTs’ energy losses of 33.4 TWh/year) Highest relative potentials in industry-oil, highest absolute
potentials in electricity distribution companies Electricity saving potentials until 2025 between 5.2 and 12.5
TWh/year in 2025, depending on scenario chosen and on general development of electricity system
CO2 reduction potentials until 2025 between 1.5 and 3.7 Mio t CO2eq.
Potentials are economical, but calculations extremely sensitive to assumptions / price developments (electricity, steel, copper)
Economic impact on electricity distribution companies largely depends on regulatory scheme
Economic impact on industry and commerce largely depends on assumptions with regard to electricity prices and interest rate chosen
21
Different market actors face different barriers and obstacles
Large electricity distribution companies Large industry Small and medium electricity distribution companies Small and medium industry and commerce Engineering firms, ESCOs, energy consultants,
planners Transformer manufacturers (and their suppliers)
22
Po
licy-
mix
pro
po
sed
by
SE
ED
T
23
Regulation of electricity distribution companies Reporting on losses / benchmarking (e.g. by using
labelling scheme) -> largest potentials first Deviations from loss target could be rewarded / penalised Incentive scheme should allow sufficient payback period
for investment Maybe specific energy efficiency investment budget
outside the cap At least existing disincentives should be removed AND
direct financial or fiscal incentives during transition period as long as incentives are not included in the regulation scheme
Specific proposals for Spain and Germany
24
Regulation of electricity distribution companies - Chances for implementation?
How to convince the regulator(s) who concentrate(s) on other issues at the moment?
How to set it on the agenda of CEER / ERGEG? Real chance for implementation? Chance if addressing network losses and
distribution system optimisation in a more general way?
25
R&D and AMDT pilot projects Increased interest at least by
ENDESA (and EDF) into pilot projects with amorphous distribution transformers (AMDT)
European AMDT pilot project with support from European Commission (-> Strategic Energy Technology Plan; European Investment Bank?)
R&D support: From efficient grid components like distribution transformers to efficient distribution systems
Source: Endesa (Test of 10 amorphous distribution transformers in Mallorca in 2008)
26
Information, motivation, advice programmes etc.Buyers and users information: Inclusion into general energy advice programmes and
sector-specific energy concepts Inclusion into general information, communication and
qualification on energy efficiency Inclusion into information and marketing by
manufacturers and ESCOs SEEDT TLCalc calculation tool for buyers
27
Labelling- Proposal 1 – a no-load losses label (named NLL label)
o This label is based on no-load losses only.o A complementary symbol, +, 0 or -, indicating the level of load losses. A DT labeled B+ will
have lower load losses (more efficient) than one labeled B-.
- Proposal 2 – a label based on a simplified combination of no load and load losses at 40% load
o This label is based on a combination of no load and load losses, at 40% loading i.e. NLL+0,16LL
- Proposal 3 – a label based on top efficiency across full spectrum of loading integral
o Total Losses = No Load Losses + 1/3 Load Losses, The rationale of this formula is
2BxASxP whereP – net power S – rated powerx – loading (expressed as ratio of rated power)A – no load lossesB – load lossesThe integral of net power from x=0 to x=1 will be the following
331
1
0
221)(max BxAxSxdxxP
o concluding, the sum of efficiencies for the whole variety of loadings from 0 to 1 can be expressed as NLL + 1/3 LL formula
28
Labelling
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
5750
6000
6250
6500
6750
7000
7250
7500
7750
8000
8250
8500
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
NLL [W]
LL [W
]
B C D E F Ak Bk Ck Dk AMDT SH15 AMDT Super high eff AoBk
Ak
Bk
Ck
Dk
Amorphous SH 15 series
CoBk
Amorphous super high efficient
CoCk
Labelling - proposal 2 400 kVA
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
5750
6000
6250
6500
6750
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
NLL [W]
LL [W
]
B C D E F Ak Bk Ck Dk AMDT SH15 AMDT Super high eff
Ak
Bk
Ck
Dk
Amorphous SH 15 series
CoBk
Amorphous super high efficient
CoCk
Labelling - proposal 3 400 kVA
29
Labelling - comparisonEN 50464
HD 428 or techspeak Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3
"AMDTAk" B+/B0 B B"AMDTBk" C-AMDT B0 B B"AMDTCk" A-AMDT B- B C/D"AMDTDk" B- B/C E
AoAk C0 C B
AoBk CC'-30% C0 C/D C
AoCk C- D/E EAoDk C- F GBoAk D0 C/D CBoBk D0 D DBoCk D0 E EBoDk D- F/G GCoAk E+ D CCoBk CC' E0 E DCoCk AC' E0 F FCoDk BC' E0 G GDoAk F+/G+ E DDoBk CB' F+/G+ F EDoCk AB' F0/G0 F/G FDoDk BB' F0/G0 G GEoAk G+ F EEoBk CA' G+ G FEoCk AA' G+ G GEoDk BA' G0 G G
30
Labelling (A, B, C etc) through integration of losses from 0% to 100% loading
Labelling - Currently preferred proposal
The value of the integral classifies the DT
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Tota
l los
ses
(W)
Loading
Total losses = No-load losses + Load losses*Loading^2
Bk Co
Dk Eo
1
int o k0
1P P( L ) dL P P
3
31
Labelling through integration of losses: Proposed classification similar to appliances
Co: Class of no load losses as per EN 50464
Bk: Class of load losses as per EN 50464
CoBk = CC’ of HD 428
32
Efficiency standards Will Europe catch up with the US and Japan?
97,50%
98,00%
98,50%
99,00%
99,50%
100,00%
15 25 30 45 50 75 100 112,5 150 160 200 225 250 300 400 500 630 750 1000 1500 1600 2000 2500
kVA
NEMA TP-1 [60 Hz] USA, Canada Japan top runner [50 Hz, 40 % load] HD 428 BA'
USA DoE USA min.TOC SH15 Series Amorphous
EU25 fleet EU25 market
33
Mandatory efficiency standard European DT manufacturers are not interested in a voluntary
agreement A mandatory EU-27 minimum efficiency standard will remove
the worst DTs from the market Only feasible if, at the same time (!), regulation of electricity
distribution companies removes any disincentives It can be designed in several ways (preferred standard in
bold, if no labelling will be introduced): maximum allowable no load and load losses (CoCk), or minimum efficiency at particular loading, or just removing the worst labelling classes from the market
34
Mandatory standard
LCC €
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
27500
30000
32500
35000
37500
40000
42500
45000
47500
AMDT AoAk AoBk AoCk AoDk BoAk BoBk BoCk BoDk CoAk CoBk CoCk CoDk DoAk DoBk DoCk DoDk EoAk EoBk EoCk EoDk
100
160
250
400
630
1000
35
Barriers towards implementing the proposed policies and measures Ambitious policy instruments proposed Low replacement rate of distribution transformers (long lifetime) Low energy saving potentials compared to some other energy
efficiency technology No complete lifecycle analysis yet: not yet fully ready for
“implementing measures” on EU level Not much interest by European manufacturers and distribution
companies yet Continuously changing regulatory schemes: Any planning and
calculation of investment possible? Any interest or acceptance by regulators / CEER / ERGEG expectable?
Political differences between EU Member States more severe than differences between states in US (difficult for setting a standard)
36
Conclusions Economic impact on electricity distribution companies largely
depends on regulatory scheme -> separate financial or fiscal incentives might be needed for transition period
Barriers and obstacles different between market actors => Bundle of policy instruments needed on EU and national level
Several barriers towards implementation of proposed policies Some chances for implementing policy instruments:
Next steps of changes in (national) regulatory schemes EU Action Plan on Energy Efficiency: Measures to reduce grid losses in
2008? EuP Directive: if combined with other transformers (> 200,000 pcs/year) New CO2 reduction targets published in EU package of 23 Jan 2008
Promotion of AMDT pilot projects can increase competition in the market for energy-efficient transformers
37Source: SEEDT (2007)
CountryNo load losses
[W]Cenelec HD428.1
EN 50464-1EN 50464-1Standard
Denmark 398 C' - 35% A0 - 7% A0 [430 W]Germany 500 C' - 18% B0 - 4%Sweden 510 C' - 16% B0 - 2%Norway 550 C' - 10% B0 + 6%Czech Republic 610 C' C0China 610 C' C0Finland 612 C' C0Slovaquia 630 C' + 3% C0 + 3%Italy 750 C' + 23% D0Spain (A-B’) (2008) 750 C’ + 23% D0Rumania 930 C' + 52% E0Greece 930 C' + 52% E0United Kingdom 930 C' + 52% E0France 930 C' + 52% E0Spain (A-A’) (until 2007) 930 C' + 52% E0Poland 946 C' + 56% E0 + 17%
No-load losses range
B0 [520 W]
D0 [750 W]
C0 [610 W]
E0 [930 W]
1ª s
pee
dWORLWIDE STANDARDS: No-load Losses Levels
Reference Values (400 kVA 3 - 50 Hz Distribution Transformer)
38
Pilot Project: EFFITRAFO ENDESA (January 2008)AMDT 400 kVA – 15.400/420 V - 3 - 50 Hz
Pot. nom.
[kVA] AMDT manufacturer Hitachi
100 75 76
160 100 108
250 140 150
400 200 213
630 320 305
1000 450 414
Po [W] Reference Values
39
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Evolution of the CGO Steel Technology
CGO: Cold-rolled grain oriented silicon steels HiB: High permeability grain oriented silicon steels
Thickness
40
Amorphous (0,025 mm)
Core losses [W/kg]
B [T]
Laser (0,23 mm)
HiB (0,23 mm)
HiB (0,30 mm)
CGO (0,30 mm)
Thickness
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Core losses versus Induction
41
CGO TechnologyCGO Technology AMDT TechnologyAMDT Technology
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Atomic structure
Crystalline Amorphous
•Ordered structure magneto crystalline anisotropy
•Polycrystalline structure higher coercivity
•Random structure lack of crystalline anisotropy
•Absence of phase boundaries lower coercivity
These features do not help for easier magnetization and
demagnetization.
These features lead to faster flux reversal.
SOLID with LIQUID ESTRUCTURE
42
Amorphous Metals exhibit: Easier magnetization (low coercivity and high permeability). Lower magnetic loss (low coercivity, high permeability and high resistivity). Faster flux reversal (as a result of low magnetic loss). Versatile magnetic properties resulting from post-fabrication. Heat-treatments and a wide range of adjustable chemical compositions.
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Magnetic Properties (I)
CGO TechnologyCGO Technology
AMDT TechnologyAMDT Technology
43
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Noise Levels
Dynamic vibration due to magnetostriction
The noise level of HB1 amorphous alloy is significantly lower than SA1 alloy (≈
10 dB)
The operating induction can be increased by 0.1÷0.15T using HB1 alloy.
Distribution Transformer can be downsized by about 10% with HB1
Source: Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (ELSEVIER), Hasegawa (2005)
44
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Thermal properties
Heat Spectrum Radiated
Grain Oriented Silicon Steel Core Amorphous Metal Core
AMDT AMDT TechnologyTechnology
CGO CGO TechnologyTechnology
45
PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers
Refrigeration process to obtain amorphous structure(106 oC/s required rate for molten-metal cooling)
Sheet (0,018 – 0,023 mm)
MELT SPINNING PROCESS
Steel Cooling Treatment Flow Chart
Melting furnace
Reservoir
Nozzle In-line process control
In-line winding
Casting roll
46
Line Diagram Core Making
PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers
47
Line Diagram Core Coil Assembly
PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers
Non automated process (“human time” involved)
Ribbon groups overlapped.
Groups staggered to space overlaps across joint.
Joint is opened up for core/coil assembly and then re-laced.
Joint can be opened and closed multiple times.
One piece core allows for easy assembly.Easy REPAIRING process
48
Open questions Do distribution transformers deserve attention from
energy efficiency point of view? Have distribution transformer efficiency received
sufficient policy and measures support (EU and country level)?
Measures; voluntary or mandatory, standard or label other
Policy instruments; EU Action Plan, EuP, Carbon, other?
Recommended