POCO is replacing manual overhead line switches with remote

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was wondering why our POCO is replacing all the overhead X KV power line switches with remote activated units. They are replacing the poles with a larger one and new prefab wireless switch and cross bar.

Any ideas why they need automation on these.
 
Much easier to restore outages with remote operatin capability.

Worst case scenarios - EMP: An old TVA study (and newer) showed that multiple high altitude burst NWE EMP events would shut down the system, a few days to restore power. With remote switching and bringing loads back online consistent with the generator station coming back n sync, a few hours.

That is, if the remote switches are being designed for EMP survivability, would assume so as lightning is a more severe threat but is localized.

PS: out here in PNW, very rare lightning storms, so pocos have few lightning arrestors for economic reasons. A 100 year lightning storm here (which occur monthly in Midwest and SE) in the 1980's wreaked havoc. Friend at Seattle City light told me they lost 176 transformers that night.
 
Automatic service restoration. The technology was slowly perfected over 30 years. Car accident now results in only about 250-500 customers being without power instead of the typical 2,500 to 3,500+ and reduces driving around to find the fault if not immediately obvious.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VGs7FdrSIE
 
Last edited:
In addition to restoring power outages automatically or from behind a desk, with switch loops you can increase the loading on each substation because you can "roll" load around to substations that still have remaining capacity.


Here is a detailed excerpt on how and why that works from another thread I wrote a while back:



Also if you would like I can clarify what I meant by delaying new substations or using smaller substations:

In general failure of power transformers today is much less frequent then decades past. Multiple failures at once are rare. Thus as a result any particular system with multiple transformers theoretically only needs one spare.

Picture a typical 180 MVA load pocket fed by 3 different 138kv-25kv substations with 25kv overhead distribution feeders. Each substation supplies 60MVA of peak load. In a none looped system each substation will have two 60MVA transformers. Load is normally evenly split between the two transformers, so for the failure of either transformer results in the full 60MVA being placed across the remaining unit. Hence the selected MVA rating. This is the typical design and mode of operation for most US utilities. Any further increase in load will require more transformers or replacing the existing units with larger ones.

Now, picture a system with recloser loop automation on each feeder circuit. The system can be programmed so that the loss of any 60MVA transformer results in automatic "load rolling". When a transformer fails at substation #1 (for example), the source reclosers on various feeders attached to the substation with the failed transformer open, and the tie reclosers from feeders emanating from other substations close. 12 MVA of load is transferred to substation #2 (6 MVA across each of two transfomer) and another 12 MVA is transferred to substation #3. In total 24 MVA of load is removed from the 60MVA load chunk normally served by substation #1. Thus, when the feeders that were normally being supplied by the failed transformer are picked up by the remaining working unit, it will only see 36MVA of load.

Therefore we have two options:

1. Assuming no load growth will take place in our 180MVA load pocket we can select 6 25/30/36 MVA transformers instead of 6 40/50/60MVA transformers. This greatly saves cost, space and reduces fault current. In systems where larger transformers force short circuit currents to exceed 10,000amps being able to get at or below 10ka is a huge blessing and cost savings on many levels. Not having to consider reactors alone is a blessing.

2. Lets say your 180MVA load pocket was designed as a radial system, 60MVA units. In the next 5-10 years peak load is projected to increase to 250MVA but not beyond that for 25 years. In a radial system you will need larger transformers at each substation (85MVA) or an extra 60MVA at each substation. You could in theory only add a transformer on one or two of the subs instead of all 3 by redistributing the load (feeder size) so the sub that can accommodate the extra transformer sees more loading... but that means some feeders will loose more customers for any fault and still anything that involves substation expansion or renovation costs millions. However, by adding recloser loops and a simple SCADA system over those 5 years you can delay substation expansion for 30 years by investing peanuts. Peanuts that may even pay for themselves in keeping customers on when a car hits a pole or bad whether strikes. For some utilites being able to re-use existing substations alone has justified recloser loops.



The thread (which also talks about why remote communication is a good idea) I know it talks about reclosers rather than switches, but the concept is absolutely identical.


https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=428164
 
Smart meters,
The remote switching will be used to change to green power when available then back to fossil fuel; or punish people who don't recycle correctly. Turn off power to the undesirables until they vote as per who ever is in power at the time.

I'll go with what the rest said better service for the customer at a lower manpower cost; unless your into conspiracies.
 
I guess what is hard for me to feel comfortable with is that the switch will turn back on to see if the fault has cleared. To me someone needs to investigate this first.

You've never seen your lights shutoff for a few seconds and then come back on? If so I'd say you've lived a sheltered life:p No different then what line reclosers and substation breakers have been doing for 90 years. Most faults are temporary like wind blown conductors and squirrels shorting out insulators. In such cases there is often no visible indication of the outage (except maybe a toasted squirrel a half mile away) so auto re-closing is routine practice for overhead power lines.
 
I guess that why there are so many POCO caused forest fires in the local mountains. Wind or critter causes a wire to short.. Then the circuit closes again and causes more sparks.
 
One of my college lecturers designed the first UK pole mount auto-reclose breakers for Ferranti back in the 50’s. “Not safe” was the cry!

About ten years later I watched one in action on farmland near where I worked. An OH line developed a high resistance earth fault, it killed several sheep and calves. End result, I had two freezers full of meat.
 
One of my college lecturers designed the first UK pole mount auto-reclose breakers for Ferranti back in the 50’s. “Not safe” was the cry!

About ten years later I watched one in action on farmland near where I worked. An OH line developed a high resistance earth fault, it killed several sheep and calves. End result, I had two freezers full of meat.



Sounds like Ferranti needed some of this :p


https://cdn.selinc.com/assets/Liter...lyers/Arc-Sense_PF00160.pdf?v=20161031-073656
 
I was wondering why our POCO is replacing all the overhead X KV power line switches with remote activated units. They are replacing the poles with a larger one and new prefab wireless switch and cross bar.

Any ideas why they need automation on these.
Faster restoration and contingency switching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top