GLWEC Offshore Cabling System Design 01142009

Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study High Voltage Cabling System Design Senergy -Econnect project
number: 2128
Prepared for
JUWI GmbH JW Great Lakes Wind LLC 1900 Superior Avenue, Suite 333 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-4420 USA
History of Changes Version

01 02 03 04
Description of Amendment
Draft Document Issue Amended to include client comments & updated cable supply costs Amended to include revised cable route lengths Amended to include map for configuration 7 (3-Turbine location)
Date
19/09/2008 05/11/2008 19/11/2008 20/11/2008
Energising Renewables A subsidiary of Senergy Alternative Energy Company Registration number SC347794 Registered Office: Exchange Tower, 19 Canning Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8EH, U.K.
2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc
Page 2 of 50
Executive Summary
Senergy Econnect Ltd has been commissioned by Juwi GmbH (Juwi) to develop and consider, as part of the overall feasibility work, a selection of conceptual cable design options for the Lake Erie offshore wind farm array, subsea shorelink electrical connection, and onshore electrical connection, taking into account possible levels of redundancy and flexibility of operation, and an optimised level of capital costs versus operational costs / losses. This is in accordance with the scope of works as detailed in the Consulting Agreement document [1]. Potential turbine locations were provided by Juwi / JWGL, and the East site and a threeturbine location were chosen for illustration purposes. All possible cabling configurations presented for the East site could apply to other eight-turbine locations. Each wind farm site will consist of eight wind turbines each rated at 2.5MW giving a maximum generating capacity of 20MW. Three potential connection points have been identified and these have been considered under Option 1, 2, and 3 in this assessment. The connection points are: Option 1 Connection at Lakeshore Substation with the cable array operated at 34.5kV (a) Wind turbines connected in cascaded format with one outgoing wind farm collector cable feeder to the shorelink (b) Wind turbines divided into two interlinked groups of wind turbines with two outgoing wind farm collector cable feeders to the shorelink (c) Wind farm divided into two interlinked groups of wind turbines with one outgoing wind farm collector cable feeder to the shorelink Option 2 - Connection at Cleveland Public Power Substation with the cable array operated at 34.5kV (a) Wind turbines connected in cascaded format with one outgoing wind farm collector cable feeder to the shorelink (b) Wind turbines divided into two interlinked groups of wind turbines with two outgoing wind farm collector cable feeders to the shorelink (c) Wind farm divided into two interlinked groups of wind turbines with one outgoing wind farm collector cable feeder to the shorelink Option 3 - Connection onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV Overhead line (OHL) with the cable array operated at 36kV (a) Wind turbines connected in cascaded format with one outgoing wind farm collector cable feeder to the shorelink (b) Wind turbines divided into two interlinked groups of wind turbines with two outgoing wind farm collector cable feeders to the shorelink (c) Wind farm divided into two interlinked groups of wind turbines with one outgoing wind farm collector cable feeder to the shorelink For each of these options, three possible wind farm array configurations have therefore been designed with varying degrees of redundancy. In addition, the connection of a three-turbine wind farm (T1-T3) has also been considered under Option 4. In this scenario the wind farm will consists of three wind turbines each rated at 5MW, giving a maximum wind farm generating capacity of 15MW. A single location for the three-turbine wind farm has been considered in this pilot study,
Page 3 of 50
therefore the three connection options for the three-turbine wind farm have been designed based on three different possible points of connection, namely: Option 4(a) Connection of three-turbine wind farm to Lakeshore Substation with the cable array operated at 34.5kV Option 4(b) Connection of three-turbine wind farm to CPP Substation with the cable array operated at 34.5kV, and Option 4(c) Connection of three-turbine wind farm onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL with the cable array operated at 36kV
Table 1, below provides a summary of the assessment results for the least cost (capitalised) options for the connection of the eight-turbine and the three-turbine wind farms. No. of WTGs connected 8 3 Estimated cable supply cost (US $million) 2.455 2.585 Estimated lifetime cost of losses (US $million) 1.945 0.953 Estimated Total lifetime costs (US $million) 4.400 3.539
Connection option
Option 1 (a) Option 4 (c)
Table 1: Estimated summary of the lowest (capitalised) cable cost
For the eight wind farm connection, Option 1(a) has the lowest cost. It is concluded that the proposed collector cable system shown on Econnect Drawing No. 2128/001 in Appendix B, employing 36kV rated copper conductor cables with 95mm2 inter-turbine subsea cabling, 240mm2 outgoing collector subsea cabling, and 240mm2 land cables, has the lowest supply cost of collector cable, lowest project lifetime cost of energy (i.e. cost of losses) and therefore the lowest total life time (capitalised) cost of the wind farm collector system compared with other option configurations considered. Connection of the East site eight-turbine offshore wind farm to the Lakeshore Substation therefore provides the most optimum connection option. In this option the proposed subsea collector cabling system will connect onto the Lakeshore substation 34.5kV busbars. For the three turbine wind farm connection, Option 4(c) has the lowest cost. It is concluded that the proposed collector cable system shown on Econnect Drawing No. 2128/002 in Appendix C, employing 36kV rated copper conductor cables with 240mm2 inter-turbine cabling, 240mm2 outgoing collector subsea cabling and 240mm2 land cables, has the lowest supply cost of collector cable, lowest project lifetime cost of energy (i.e. cost of losses) and therefore the lowest total life time cost of the wind farm collector system compared with other option configurations considered. Connection of the threeturbine offshore wind farm to the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL therefore provides the most optimum connection option. In this option the proposed collector cabling system will be operated at 36kV.
Page 4 of 50
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.10.1 7.10.2 7.10.3 7.10.4 7.11 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 10 10.1 10.1.1 10.1.2 10.2 11 12 13 14 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 7 Method ................................................................................................................................ 7 Assumptions used in the assessment ................................................................................. 8 Exclusions from the assessment ......................................................................................... 8 Wind farm location and relation to local distribution networks.............................................. 9 Conceptual design of wind farm collector cabling system .................................................. 11 Design philosophy ............................................................................................................. 11 Cable type ......................................................................................................................... 11 Desktop route survey ........................................................................................................ 12 Cable losses...................................................................................................................... 16 Installed cable operating conditions................................................................................... 17 Fault Level considerations................................................................................................. 18 Basis for Turbine maximum continuous loading ................................................................ 19 Proposed wind farm cable array configurations ................................................................. 20 Redundancy and re-configurability .................................................................................... 23 Further considerations of connection options .................................................................... 24 Option 1 Connection at Lakeshore Substation .................................................... 24 Option 2 Connection at Cleveland Power Plant Substation................................. 25 Option 3 Connection onto the Oglebay - Norton 36kV Overhead Line ................ 26 Option 4 - Three-Turbine Wind Farm connection ................................................... 27 36kV Collector cable selection .......................................................................................... 28 Evaluation of the 36kV collector cabling system assessment ............................................ 31 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 31 Value of energy ................................................................................................................. 31 Wind farm load factor ........................................................................................................ 32 Results of the assessment ................................................................................................ 32 36kV cable offshore and onshore installation .................................................................... 35 Offshore 36kV array cables ............................................................................................... 35 Offshore cable installation equipment .................................................................... 35 Offshore cable installation overview....................................................................... 35 Onshore 36kV cable installation ........................................................................................ 38 Conclusion of the assessment........................................................................................... 39 References........................................................................................................................ 40 Appendix A: Subsea and Land Power Cable Technical Parameters.................................. 41 Appendix B: Option 1(a) Single line drawing ..................................................................... 43
Page 5 of 50
15 16 17 18
Appendix C: Option 4 (c) Single Line Drawings ................................................................. 44 Appendix D: Cable optimisation calculation results........................................................... 45 Appendix E - Typical Installation method for Offshore cable in J-tube ............................... 47 Appendix F: Typical onshore 33kV cable trench profile .................................................... 48
Page 6 of 50
Introduction
Juwi GmbH / JW Great Lakes Wind are the Project Manager for a feasibility study for a multi-turbine offshore wind energy pilot project in Lake Erie and affiliated research / development test center, situated near Cleveland, Ohio, USA. It is anticipated that the test center will be located approximately two to five miles offshore and is proposed to have a total installed capacity of approximately 20MW. Senergy Econnect (Econnect) has been commissioned by juwi GmbH (Juwi) to develop and consider, as part of the overall feasibility work, a selection of conceptual cable design options for the offshore wind farm array, subsea shorelink electrical connection, and onshore electrical connection, taking into account possible levels of redundancy and flexibility of operation, and an optimised level of capital costs versus operational costs / losses. This is in accordance with the scope of works as detailed in the Consulting Agreement document [1].
Objectives
Prepare a conceptual design of offshore cable array, subsea cable shorelink connection and onshore cable connection to the proposed connection point. The study will consider three different array and connection configurations Use latest technical data provided by other team members and sub-consultants Identify installation methods and typical burial depth of cables onshore and offshore Provide budget costs for each proposed configuration, and Provide single line diagrams for each of the proposed connection options
This study will evaluate offshore electrical connection potential and
Method
Conduct a desktop study into the conceptual design of the offshore cable array of the wind farm, the subsea cable shorelink connection, and the onshore cable connection to the proposed connection point into the existing onshore electrical network. This study will be limited to no more than three different array and connection configurations taking into account the clients required levels of redundancy and flexibility of operation, and an optimised level of capital costs versus operational costs/losses, and potential cable corridors/routes using potential turbine locations identified by juwi / JWGL Using the latest technical data and budget costs supplied by cable manufacturers / suppliers for a range of cable sizes, analyse the trade-off between capital cost and losses, and make recommendations regarding cable selection for the array, shorelink, and onshore cables Identify installation methods and typical burial depths of cables both offshore and onshore Provide budget costings for each proposed configuration of cable array, shorelink and onshore connection. Provide a single line diagram for each of the proposed connection options
The methodology used for the cable system design and assessment is given below:
Page 7 of 50
Assumptions used in the assessment

At this stage of the project, the size, make and number of turbines have not been finalised and this is still the subject of consideration by the client. For the purpose of this assessment, and as agreed with the client, a wind farm capacity of 20MW comprising of 8 x 2.5MW wind turbine generators (WTG) has been assumed [2]. A further study for a wind farm capacity of 15MW comprising of 3 x 5MW generators has also been considered [3] The cable design of the HV system for each connection point is treated separately since the voltage rating at each connection point is different although a single industry standard cable design rated at 36kV will be used in all cases. Cables have therefore been sized based on calculations using the actual operating voltage for the specific connection configuration (i.e 34.5kV or 36kV) Steady state voltage limits for systems rated at 34.5kV or 36kV system voltage are maintained within +/-6% of nominal [4] Load currents are based on the turbines operating at full load, within a range of 0.95 leading and 0.95 lagging power factors and with nominal voltage ratings of 34.5kV and 36kV
The following assumptions have been made:
Exclusions from the assessment

The cost of the wind farm infrastructure, i.e. turbine transformers, turbine switchgear, onshore switchgear, buildings and structures since this assessment is outside the Scope of Work of this study The effect of operation of the wind farm on electrical grid system fault levels, voltage rise, voltage step, stability and power quality assessments as these assessments are outside the Scope of Work of this study An assessment of losses attributed to the turbines and associated turbine transformers and grid transformers Assessment of the wind turbine LV cables between the wind turbine generators and the wind turbine transformers inside the wind turbine tower as these are normally specified by the wind turbine manufacturer as part of the wind turbine package. This assessment therefore covers the external inter-turbine connection high voltage (HV) power cables, and the wind farm collector cabling system leading to the grid connection point The assessment is based only on estimated supply cable cost of the (HV) power cables obtained from cable manufacturers and Senergy Econnects database and excludes the installation costs of cable runs as these costs are subject to onsite variations and detailed surveyed cable routes
This assessment study will exclude the following:
Page 8 of 50
Wind farm location and relation to local distribution networks
Although Juwi have provided an initial four preliminary locations for the wind farm, in this report, only the East site location with WTGs designated E1 to E8 and shown in Figure 1 has been considered in accordance with the scope of works of this assessment. It is however noted that possible cabling configurations presented for the East site could apply to the three other eight-turbine configurations with variations only in cable lengths. With reference to Figure 1, and as discussed in Section 7.3 of this report, cable route layouts have been designed to avoid the harbour breakwall and utilise available water channels to access onshore connection points. The site for a three-turbine wind farm with WTGs designated T1 to T3 (Configuration 7) has also been considered in this assessment [3]. The connection of the three-turbine wind farm has been considered separately to the eight-turbine wind farm under consideration.
Figure 1: Local distribution network and potential wind farm array locations
At this stage of the project, the following three potential connection points have been identified: 1) An 11kV busbar connection at Lakeshore Substation via 2 x 34.5/11kV transformers. 2) A 69kV busbar connection at Cleveland Public Power (CPP) Substation via 1 x 34.5/69kV transformer. 3) A Tee-connection onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV (OHL) The proposed cable layout from both the East site wind farm and the three-turbine wind farm locations for connection to the CPP substation have been routed to pass close to the lakeshore in order to utilise the access water channel at the northern end of the existing harbour wall. An alternative route could be to directly cross the harbour wall to access the connection point at CPP substation. However as considered in Section 7.3 of this report,
Page 9 of 50
this option is likely to be expensive as it involves horizontal directional drilling over a significant cable route length and is therefore not preferred when compared to other available options. Table 2 below provides a desk top assessment of the distances in miles between the turbine locations, and between the proposed wind farm locations and the proposed connection points at Lakeshore Substation, CPP Substation and on the Oglebay-Norton 36kV OHL. The cable route distances have been estimated from the GIS maps for the Lake Erie and cross-checked with the cable length estimates provided by Juwi [4] [12]. Proposed Wind Farm Location From WTG01 To WTG08 Estimated Direct Route Distance (miles) 1.68 0.24 Notes Offshore Assume WTGs equally spaced Offshore Offshore Offshore Onshore Onshore Offshore Assume WTGs equally spaced Offshore Offshore Offshore Onshore Onshore
Inter-turbine distance Lakeshore Shorelink Cleveland Public Power Substation Oglebay Shorelink Lakeshore Substation Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL WTG03
WTG08 East site (E1 E8) WTG08 WTG08 Lakeshore shorelink Oglebay Shorelink WTG01
3.2 3.9 5.3 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.6
Inter-turbine distance Lakeshore Shorelink Cleveland Public Power Substation Oglebay Shorelink Lakeshore Substation Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL
WTG03 Three-turbine site (T1-T3) WTG03 WTG01 Lakeshore shorelink Oglebay Shorelink
3.8 4.5 3.8 0.3 0.2
Table 2: Estimated distance from proposed wind farm location to connection point
The proposed East site wind farm location is located approximately 3.2 miles from the landing (shorelink) at Lakeshore, 3.9 miles from CPP Substation and 5.3 miles from the Oglebay shorelink. The Lakeshore landing is 0.3 mile distant from the proposed connection point at Lakeshore Substation, while the Oglebay landing is 0.2 mile from a proposed connection point on the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL, as shown in Table 1
Page 10 of 50
above. The CPP Substation is nearly adjacent to the shoreline and therefore it has been assumed the connection will not require transition to land cables. It is Senergy Econnects understanding that the connection at Lakeshore substation is proposed to be made via two 34.5/11kV step-down transformers suitably rated to accommodate the maximum generation capacity of the wind farm [2]. Therefore the wind farm collector cable array will be rated at 34.5kV. It is also Senergy Econnects understanding that the connection at CPP substation is proposed to be made via a 34.5/69kV step-up transformer suitably rated to accommodate the maximum generation capacity of the wind farm [6]. Therefore the wind farm collector cable array will be rated at 34.5kV. The connection at Oglebay will be onto the 36kV Oglebay Norton OHL and therefore the wind farm collector cable array will be rated at 36kV. With reference to most cable manufacturers in the USA, a 36kV industry standard cable will be used in this study for both the voltage levels (i.e. 34.5kV and 36kV), with the applicable conductor sizes determined according to the operating and loading conditions. Therefore the cable design shall herein be referred to as the 36kV cable which has similar electrical properties as the 35kV class cable used in the USA. The local network which includes Lakeshore Substation and the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL is owned and operated by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI). The CPP Substation is owned and operated by Cleveland Public Power Company. The offshore wind turbine generators will generate at LV and the voltage will be steppedup to a higher voltage of 34.5kV or 36kV using the internally installed wind turbine transformers, for efficient transmission to the shore. Therefore the voltage rating of the collector cable system will be chosen as 36kV for connection onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV line while the collector cable array for the wind farm connection at Lakeshore or CPP Substation will be chosen as 34.5kV.
7
7.1
Conceptual design of wind farm collector cabling system

Design philosophy
This section presents the formulation of the potential wind farm collector cable system. The first step in the process is to establish the preferred voltage level of grid connection. The second step is to estimate the maximum number of turbines that will be connected to each of the main array cables. Once the maximum loading of the individual turbine cable groups has been determined, the number and size of the main array cables, and approximate length can be derived. The design of the wind farm collector and interconnection system layout is achieved by starting with typical arrangements such as radial and loop arrangements. Having determined the basic structure, the design is optimised by an iterative process which takes into account both performance and capital cost of the collector cable array. The final step in the process is to consider the cost and technical issues associated with the provision of additional redundancy in the wind farm collector system. The results of this are presented and discussed.
7.2
Cable type
Single core and three core cables are readily available on the market. However the active power export of the wind farm, and the need to minimise the number of separate cables exposed to potential damage and cable laying costs, means that cables between the turbine towers, and the offshore-onshore export feeder should be of the three core
Page 11 of 50
construction. For long length subsea applications, three core designs are far superior as losses in the cable armour wires, and the resulting derating of the cables, are considerably less. The external magnetic and secondary electric fields outside three core designs of cables are also considerably less than those for single core cables. Single core designs have therefore not been considered further in this assessment. Armoured polymeric insulated cables are widely used to provide the low maintenance, highly secure high voltage system connection typically required for wind farms. At system voltages rated up to 36kV, ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) and cross-linked Polyethylene (XLPE) insulated cables are usually employed for subsea connections as they have a proven track record of resistance to water ingress, an extended life expectancy and a high AC voltage breakdown strength. Although EPR insulated cables are available up to 150kV, worldwide service experience is relatively low. Most cable manufacturers have standardised on XLPE insulated cables. For this reason EPR insulated cables have not been considered in this assessment. XLPE insulated cables are used for land and subsea AC systems up to 400kV and above. At 36kV they are accepted as the standard design for most applications worldwide. As a result, the 36kV three core XLPE designs have been considered for subsea cables in this report. In addition, this assessment assumes that subsea cables are specified with integrated optical fibre cable. Subsea cables rated for operation up to 36kV can be obtained in a range of standard sizes. These sizes are normally specified in terms of the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the individual conductors. Appendix A lists standard subsea cable sizes including their ratings and impedances. Stranded copper conductor cables rather than the less expensive aluminium alternative have been considered in this assessment due to the following: Copper conductor cables have greater current carrying capacity per unit crosssectional area thus reducing installation complexity Copper conductor cables have greater resilience to damage during installation Copper conductor cables have a superior resistance to corrosion should the armouring become damaged resulting in the conductor being exposed to seawater (given the generally long lead times to effect offshore cable repairs)
Comparisons made using local estimated values for copper and aluminium conductors for the land cables indicate that it is cheaper to use cables employing copper conductors than aluminium conductors. The larger size required for cables employing aluminium conductor implies a higher supply cost, while the cost of losses remain still higher when compared with a smaller size copper conductor cable with a similar current rating. Larger aluminium cables would be more complex and less flexible to handle during installation. The cable type recommended for the onshore installation from the shorelink (Transition pit) to the point of connection is a 36kV XLPE single core cable with stranded copper conductor. Appendix A also lists standard land cable sizes including their ratings and impedances.
7.3
Desktop route survey
Bathymetry data co-ordinate systems have been assessed and the proposed offshore and onshore cable routes and their respective estimated cable lengths have been established, and summarised in Table 2. The shortest theoretical cable routes have been used in the assessment, however the final cable routes and lengths will be subject to a detailed lakebed survey and an onshore cable route survey to identify any potential obstacles to the proposed cable route.
Page 12 of 50
From the Great Lakes GIS data, major obstacles in the area for the proposed cable routes include but not limited to: (a) The harbour breakwall The existence of a harbour breakwall along the Lake Erie shoreline presents a major obstacle to the proposed cable route to access either the CPP substation or the Oglebay 36kV onshore connection points. Two potential cable route options exist to overcome the harbour breakwall obstacle, namely: (i) Directly crossing the harbour wall using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) technology to pre-install a cable duct under the harbour breakwall foundation, and then pulling the cable in the duct from a selected point offshore before the breakwall to a point onshore. As a consequence of using HDD and considering the distance to be drilled, this option is likely to be relatively expensive Figure 2 shows the harbour breakwall. A full detailed engineering survey and feasibility study would need to be conducted to assess the feasibility of this option before it can be implemented
Figure 2: Location of harbour breakwall
(ii)
As an alternative to (i), there is an access area at the northern end of the breakwall and two other access openings near the southern end of the breakwall to create water channels which can be utilised for the installation of the subsea cables to access the shorelinks near the CPP Substation and Oglebay Figure 3 shows the access water channels on the southern section of the harbour breakwall. Although using these access channels will entail longer cable runs, it is expected that the increased cost of extra cable lengths and the associated installation costs will not be higher than the costs involved in performing HDD suggested in (i) above
Page 13 of 50
The only disadvantage with this option is the possibility of high dredging activities in these water channels; the extent of this activity will need to be checked with the local authority responsible for the water channels to ensure safety of the buried subsea cables. Available information suggests that due to heavy dredging activities in the water channel opposite the Cuyahoga river mouth, it is not preferred to use this water channel but rather the water channel at the south-western end of the harbour breakwall as an access route for the subsea power cables
Figure 3: Access water channels and Sewer Outfall pipes
(b)
Sewer Outfall 1 & 2 pipes From the point the outfall pipes cross beneath the harbour breakwall, Outfall 1 (in green) is approximately 5-12ft beneath the lakebed while Outfall 2 (in blue) is right at the lakebed in places, or only 2-3ft beneath the lakebed. On the shore side of the breakwall, Outfall 1 is approximately1217ft below, and Outfall 2 is approximately 7-17ft below the lakebed. Figure 3 shows the layout of outfall 1 and 2 pipes. The proposed burial depth of the collector cables is 4.9ft (1.5m) [7][8]. It is therefore recommended that crossing these structures should take place on the shoreside of the harbour breakwall Consultation with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District would be necessary to ensure no damage to the pipes during the installation of the subsea power cables
(c)
Water intake pipes (i) Kirtland (the Crib) water intake pipe
Page 14 of 50
The pipework for this water intake runs from the Crib to an onshore point close to the CPP plant. Available information suggests that the water pipes for this water intake are buried approximately 50 to 60ft (i.e. 15.2 to 18.3m) below the lakebed [7][8], which is well clear of the 4.9ft (1.5m) burial depth which has been proposed for the subsea cables. Figure 4 shows the water intake pipes existing within the Lake Erie waters that could present major obstacles to the proposed cable routes (ii) Morgan water intake pipes The pipework for this water intake runs from Morgan water intake point as a single pipe for a significant length before splitting into two sections which terminate onshore to the south-west of the proposed Ogleybay 36kV connection point. Available information suggests that the water pipes for this water intake are buried approximately 50 to 60ft (i.e. 15.2 to 18.3m) below the lakebed. The western section approaches about 35 feet (i.e. 10.7m) burial depth at its most shallow areas [7][8]. The burial depths along the pipes are therefore well clear of the 4.9ft (1.5m) burial depth which has been proposed for the subsea cables. Figure 4 shows the water intake pipes existing within the Lake Erie waters that could present major obstacles to the proposed cable routes Consultation with the Cleveland City water department would be necessary to ensure no damage to the pipes during the installation of the subsea power cables
Figure 4: Kirtland and Morgan water intake pipes
As this project study is preliminary and based on pilot wind farm site locations at the East site and at the three-turbine wind farm location, it is possible that connections to other wind farm sites would encounter other obstacles. Each case would therefore need to be considered on an individual basis to determine the potential existence of such major obstacles and how the proposed cable route would be affected.
Page 15 of 50
Considering the above, it is recommended that further confirmation of the existence or absence of other potential hazards or obstacles along the proposed cable routes be made in a detailed engineering lakebed survey to include but not limited to: Adverse geology (sharp rocks etc) Shipwrecks Dumping grounds Ships anchoring (and dragging their anchors) Underwater pipelines and other cables, etc Dredging activities Other existing or planned offshore development Water intake and sewer outfall pipework
Information available on public domain website for Lake Erie (www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/nearshore-water/paper/part1.html) indicates that The temperature of the nearshore waters at the lake bed in summer in all five Lakes (of the Great Lakes) exceeds 15C and may reach 25C in portions of Lake Erie. Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes and also has the warmest water temperatures [9]. Therefore, in this assessment a maximum ground (lakebed) temperature of approximately 25C has been assumed as a worst case. Cable manufacturer manuals specify a permissible maximum cable conductor temperature of 90C, and an operating temperature range of minus 30C to +70C for the subsea cables. The burial depth should be determined from a risk assessment of damage (e.g. from anchors / fishing, dredging, etc) along with an assessment of lakebed soil conditions to determine burial techniques, costs, risks and therefore the optimum burial depth at different sections of the cable route. However if burial depths higher than the recommended 4.9ft used in this report are to be used, then further derating of the cable would be necessary to determine the optimum load current applicable to the section of the cable. While cable burial depths of up to 8.2ft below the lakebed can be implemented, the major limiting factor would be the ground temperature which can be higher than 40C at such deeper levels. This scenario would result in significant derating of the cable and would consequently require the use of larger cable sizes than would be normally required at a nominal depth of 4.9ft.
7.4
Cable losses
Electrical power losses are important in any design especially where the value of energy is high, such as is the case for renewable energy. Losses can be categorised as standing losses and load losses. Standing losses exist even when no power is being generated. Load losses increase with power transfer in accordance with a square law. The most significant losses for offshore wind farms occur in transformers (the individual turbine transformer and the grid transformer) and cables (array collection cables, array to shore cables and onshore cables). Losses in all equipment can be reduced at the design stage but increased capital costs are incurred in order to achieve this. Offshore wind farm designs should be optimised for minimum lifetime costs while accounting for both capital costs and the cost of losses. Losses are also affected by operating power factors. The proposed design should be reviewed against the owners specific requirements at the detailed design stage. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed design in this assessment expects to deliver typical loss levels on an international benchmark, Econnect would expect that a thorough examination of loss optimisation issues will be carried out at the detailed design stage and prior the implementation of the project.
Page 16 of 50
7.5
Installed cable operating conditions
The cable current capacity is heavily influenced by the rate at which thermal energy is removed from the cable. Conduction and convection rates depend critically upon the burial depth, the environment in which the cable is installed and the ambient conditions surrounding it. It is important to consider those parts of the cable with special installation conditions (e.g. the part of the cable in the J-tube), and to use conservative assumptions with respect to ambient temperature and ground conductivity. When a subsea cable passes from an offshore installation to the mainland (or vice versa), or when a subsea cable has to be installed from the seabed and up the turbine structure, it is usually installed in a J-tube (from its general shape) to provide mechanical protection to the cable. The cable is enclosed by this tube from the seabed to a point well above the sea water line. Within this length there can be no air movement through the tube because its lower end is effectively sealed by the sea and the upper end is often covered. Therefore from a thermal point of view, the most onerous portion of the cable run is where the cable is within the J-tube above sea level. For the offshore wind farm HV subsea cables, the proposed installation conditions are as follows: Installed on the lakebed (buried to target depth of 4.9ft (i.e. 1.5m)) Installed in J-tubes at the turbines and at the shorelinks (before the transition pits)
Conservative assumptions have been adopted for each of the two situations listed in Table 3 below. Installation situation Installation on the lakebed Key assumptions 4.9ft burial depth 25C lakebed temperature 0.7K.m/W ground thermal resistivity No direct solar radiation on the cable Installed in the J-tube 30C air ambient temperature De-rating factor of 0.88 applied cable installed in J-tube [10]
Table 3: Assumptions regarding subsea cable installation
For cable sizes up to 800mm2, the J-tube ratings are slightly lower than the lakebed ratings. This suggests that the selection of suitable cable sizes for the inter-turbine cables and between the wind farm and the shorelink, will be constrained by the J-tube rating [10]. A lakebed thermal resistivity of 0.7Km/W has been used in the cable rating calculations. If the actual thermal resistivity is lower, the cable ratings would improve. For example, using 0.5Km/W, improves the ratings by around 12%. Consequently we would recommend that the lakebed thermal resistivity should be measured in situ in order to determine a representative value. Subsea jointing of cables is considered impractical. For the onshore HV land cables, the installation conditions are as follows: Conservative assumptions have been adopted for the installation conditions listed in Table 4 below.
Page 17 of 50
Installation condition
Key assumptions
Installation in ground (Direct burial in cable 2.6ft burial depth to cable centre trench) 1.2K.m/W Ground thermal resistivity 150C Ground temperature
Table 4: Assumptions regarding onshore cable installation
7.6
Fault Level considerations
The maximum short circuit fault level seen by the wind farm 36kV collector cabling system will determine the minimum cable conductor size. The fault level that would be experienced on each connection point will consist of a fault contribution from the existing grid system and a fault contribution from the proposed wind farm development. The maximum fault level as seen by the Lake Erie Wind Farm HV collector cabling system is based on the following data and assumptions: The maximum three fault level at the point of connection at the 11kV side of Lakeshore Substation has been provided by Black & Veatch (BV) [2] as 40kA BV have also advised that, the maximum three fault level at the point of connection at the 34.5kV side of CPP Substation will be assumed to be the same as the 34.5kV side at Lakeshore Substation [2][6] Lake Erie Wind Farm will be connected at 11kV at Lakeshore Substation via two 34.5/11kV transformers each assumed to be rated at 16MVA with a typical transformer impedance of 5% Lake Erie Wind Farm will be connected at 69kV at CPP Substation via a 34.5/69kV transformer suitably rated to accommodate the maximum generation capacity of the wind farm [6] The duration of the three-phase fault has been assumed to be 1 second and therefore the protection system operating time setting will be less than 1 second [2] The magnitude of the fault contribution from the wind farm at 1 second should be negligible due to the inherent characteristics of the turbine generators. Moreover the intervening impedances of the individual and collective wind farm cable array and the individual wind turbine generator transformer impedances will further reduce the wind farm fault current contribution. This is a conservative assumption, and detailed fault level analysis will be required to accurately quantify both the wind farm fault current contribution at the connection point as well as the fault level headroom available on the local distribution network. Further details relating to the performance of the existing network, the selected wind turbine generator type, size and the generator transformer details, will be required to carry out an accurate estimation of the fault contribution of the wind farm Given the above data and considerations, a fault level calculation (high level approach) has been carried out to yield a three phase fault level at the point of connection at Lakeshore Substation to be 7.6kA at 34.5kV. The same value of fault level has therefore been assumed at the CPP substation as advised by BV [6] The maximum three fault level at the point of connection on the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL is 10kA, as provided by BV [2] For a busbar connection at the Lakeshore or CPP Substation, the subsea or land cables should have a minimum three-phase fault rating greater than 7.6kA. However considering the uncertainties regarding the transformer sizes and
Page 18 of 50
impedances at both the Lakeshore and CPP Substations at this stage of the project, it is prudent to assume a worst case scenario in which the prospective minimum fault levels at these two points will be the same as the fault level at the Oglebay point of connection, i.e., 10kA. Therefore in all the options, and for the purpose of this cable assessment, a minimum three phase fault level of 10kA has been assumed at all connection points Therefore for the wind farm connection points at Lakeshore Substation, CPP Substation and on the Oglebay OHL, the subsea or land cables should have a minimum three-phase rating of greater than 10kA
Table 5, below, shows the recommended minimum copper conductor sizes for the Lake Erie Wind Farm 36kV collector cable system, with a three-phase short circuit capability greater than 10kA at 36kV. The 36kV cables will in any case have a copper armour tape (for subsea cables) or copper wire screen (for land cables), capable of withstanding the single phase short circuit rating. For the same size copper conductor, the three phase fault level capability is similar for both a 3-core subsea and a single core onshore cable. A 70mm2 cable has been included in this table for reference only whilst the 185mm2 and 240mm2 cable sizes would be required where the grouping derating factor of 0.85 for two cable circuits in the same trench is applied (i.e. for Options 1(b), 2(b) and 3(b)), or where the use of the specific cable sizes results in optimum lifetime cable costs. Minimum Cable Conductor Size (mm2) 70 95 120 150 185 240 Cable Conductor Type Copper Copper Copper Copper Copper Copper Short Circuit Rating Of Conductor For 1 second (kA) 10 13.5 17.1 21.4 26.4 34.3
Table 5: 36kV Subsea / Land cable minimum conductor size to meet fault level
7.7
Basis for Turbine maximum continuous loading
The cables selected for the interconnection of the WTGs and the offshore-onshore export cables must be adequately rated for the functions they are expected to perform under steady state conditions. It is particularly important to consider a worst case loading scenario. Such a scenario can be constructed as follows: The East site location wind farm uses WTGs rated at 2.5MW The 3-Turbine wind farm uses WTGs rated at 5MW The wind farm exports power at unity power factor at the point of connection. However, the power factor at the turbines may be as low as 0.95 lagging or 0.95 leading (i.e. the import or export of 6.6MVAr of reactive power when exporting 20MW of active power and the import or export of 4.9MVAr of reactive power when exporting 15MW of active power) The operating voltages of 34.5kV and 36kV may fall to their lowest permitted levels of 32.4kV and 33.8kV respectively, (i.e. permissible voltage drop of 6% from nominal voltage) [4]
While a combination of all the above scenarios is considered to be an unlikely event, it is good design practice to design for extreme conditions.
Page 19 of 50
Tables 6 and 7 show the maximum expected loading for a cable array that is required to carry the output of a single turbine rated at 34.5kV and 36kV respectively. The figures in the right-hand columns show the maximum continuous load under the worst case loading conditions, in amperes. No. of turbines connected via cable 1 x turbine 1 x turbine Maximum continuous loading of cable MW 2.5 5 MVA @ 0.95pf 2.63 5.26 Loading (A) @ 34.5kV 44 88 Loading (A) @ 32.4kV 46.8 93.6
Table 6: Estimated maximum loading of turbine cable array at 34.5kV
No. of turbines connected via cable 1 x turbine 1 x turbine
Maximum continuous loading of cable MW 2.5 5 MVA @ 0.95pf 2.63 5.26 Loading (A) @ 36kV 42.2 84.4 Loading (A) @ 33.8kV 44.9 89.7
Table 7: Estimated maximum loading of turbine cable array at 36kV
7.8
Proposed wind farm cable array configurations
In this section three fundamentally different layouts are proposed. The proposed layout options (i.e. Options 1, 2, and 3) have been categorised according to where the main outgoing collector cable connects to (i.e. Option1-Lakeshore Substation, Option 2-CPP Substation, and Option 3-Oglebay-Norton 36kV OHL), while the distinction between the sub-items (a), (b) and (c) in each option have been categorised according to the specific cable array configuration as illustrated in Figures 5, 6 and 7. The following Figures 5, 6 and 7 illustrate the proposed cable array configurations (a), (b) and (c) used in this assessment.
Figure 5: Cable array configuration (a)
Page 20 of 50
Figure 6: Cable array configuration (b)
Figure 7: Cable array configuration (c)
Page 21 of 50
Figures 8 and 9 shown below illustrate the cable array configurations used in Option 4, where Option 4 (a) represents the connection of the three-turbine wind farm at Lakeshore Substation, 4 (b) at the CPP Substation, and 4(c) onto the Oglebay-Norton 36kV OHL. For the three-wind turbine wind farm, no alternatives to the layout configurations at each connection point have been considered as the variation in the layout configuration is not expected to yield much benefit given the number of WTGs involved.
Figure 8: Three-turbine cable array configuration (Options 4a & 4b)
Figure 9: Three-turbine cable array configuration (Options 4c)
Page 22 of 50
Further description of each option and its sub-items are detailed in Section 7.10 of this report. Subsea cable lengths between the wind turbines have been estimated as follows: straight line distance between two turbine positions, plus 2 x turbine leg ((i) below), plus allowance for cable snaking ((ii) below) (i) Cable lengths have been based on an average lake water depth of 63ft (19 meters) [5], in addition to which a further 32.8ft (10 metres) have been allowed for the length required to run the cable from the lake water surface up to the transition piece in the switchgear room at the base / first floor of the turbine tower. From the switchgear to the turbine transformer in the nacelle, a special flexible cable is used which is usually supplied by the turbine manufacturer Allowance for cable snaking has been set at 5% of total length of the array which allows for cable loops, bends and terminations
(ii)
Land cable lengths have been based on the estimated cable route with an allowance of 5% of total length, which allows for cable loops, bends and terminations.
7.9
Redundancy and re-configurability
Without any form of redundancy, the loss of a cable in a collector string is dependent on the collection system layout chosen and the location of the fault and may cause up to 8 turbines to be constrained off until cable repairs or replacement works have been performed. The period of time required to effect these repairs economically could range from one week to several months depending on vessel availability and prevailing weather conditions. In conventional electricity transmission network or power station, full redundancy is generally provided so that, following the failure of any one element (cable or transmitter in this case), the full demand load or power generation can be supplied / transmitted. In the case of wind power generation, full redundancy is not as cost effective because the generator is not providing full output all the time. Onshore wind farms have moved away from providing any kind of redundancy as this generally imposes extra costs for little return, and this tendency was replicated in the first offshore wind farm designs in the UK. However the disadvantage of zero redundancy design resides in the wind farms lifetime operating costs where MV cable losses and loss of revenue due to cable failure downtime (particularly in an offshore context) may exceed any saving gained on the MV system capital cost at the beginning of the project. It is now widely recognised in the offshore wind farm industry that partial redundancy provides the right balance between project capital and operating costs. Partial redundancy is achieved when, in the event of a loss of a single element, the wind array can be reconfigured in such a way that all lost generating units are re-connected, although the redundancy is only partial as export will be limited by the thermal rating on the remaining elements. Redundancy links have been considered and a number of array cables have been replaced with cables having a larger conductor size. This is to enable the relevant turbine arrays that are lightly loaded under normal configuration to carry larger amounts of power following the reconfiguration of the wind farm collector system. In normal operation, the redundancy links are operated Normally Open. In the event of a loss of an inter-turbine or main array cable, the wind farm operator will send a signal to the
Page 23 of 50
wind farm control system to reconfigure the arrays by taking out of service the faulty circuits and closing the redundant links. An additional advantage of a partial or full redundancy approach is that the auxiliary power to a turbine is maintained for any given fault. Allowing a turbine to be without power for a significant period can: Invalidate the turbine warranty Result in corrosion and deterioration due to shutdown of dehumidification systems Pose a safety risk to personnel working on the turbines without light or power Affect safety and protection systems such as navaids or aircraft warning lights
Maintaining the auxiliary supply at all times will reduce costs in the design of UPS systems which might otherwise be required on each turbine. In this assessment it has been considered and agreed with the client that the advantages of having redundancy are far outweighed by the disadvantages brought about by the high capital costs involving the increased cable supply costs if redundancy was to be accounted for. The small number of wind turbines involved in this project has further reduced the justification for the costly redundancy. The selection of the cable configuration in this assessment has therefore been based only on the lowest cost option utilising the basic wind farm cable array configurations.
7.10 Further considerations of connection options 7.10.1 Option 1 Connection at Lakeshore Substation
7.10.1.1 Wind farm layout in Option 1(a)

The proposed cabling system single line diagram (SLD) for this option comprises of a single string of eight wind turbines laid out in cascaded interconnection format as shown in Figure 5 in Section 7.8 of this report. This option is the simplest of all the options considered for connection at Lakeshore Substation and does not offer redundancy. Optimised subsea 3-core cables will be dimensioned to carry the load according to the number of connected wind turbines in the particular interconnecting cable array. The outgoing collector cable from WTG08 will carry the total generation output from the group of eight turbines to the Lakeshore shorelink (Transition pit). From the transition pit it is proposed to lay a single circuit of single core land cables to the HV side on the 34.5/11kV transformer(s) at Lakeshore Substation. Accordingly the wind farm cable array for this option will operate at 34.5kV. Under this option the cable length and the conductor size required are minimised, therefore this option has the lowest overall cost compared to other options for the wind farm connection at Lakeshore Substation.
7.10.1.2 Wind farm layout in Option 1(b)

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option is presented in Figure 6 in Section 7.8 of this report. The wind turbines have been subdivided into two groups with one group comprising of WTG01, 02, 03 and 04 and the other group comprising of WTG05, 06, 07, and 08. The two groups are linked to each other via an interconnecting cable link between WTG04 and WTG05. Under normal operation, this link is Normally Open, and will only be closed in the event of a loss of an inter-turbine or main array cable. Two outgoing collector cables will be connected each from WTG01 and WTG8 to the transition pit onshore. From the transition pit two circuits each comprising of three single core land cables will be laid
Page 24 of 50
from the transition pit to the HV side on the 34.5/11kV transformer(s) at Lakeshore Substation. The wind farm cable array for this option will operate at 34.5kV. This option offers full redundancy and provides an equal number of turbines per turbine grouping. The average cable size in the cable array will be increased compared to option 1(a) as cables will be dimensioned to carry increased load in the event of a loss of the inter-turbine or main cable array. Although this option will have reduced cable losses compared to Option 1(a), it will result in increased cable lengths and conductor sizes, and therefore higher overall costs.
7.10.1.3 Wind farm layout in Option 1(c)

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option is presented in Figure 7 in Section 7.8 of this report. As in Option 1(b), the wind turbines have been subdivided into two groups with one group comprising of WTG01, 02, 03 and 04 and the other group comprising of WTG05, 06, 07, and 08. The two groups are linked to each other via an interconnecting cable link between WTG04 and WTG05. Under normal operation, this link is Normally Open, and will only be closed in the event of a loss of an inter-turbine array cable. An additional interconnecting cable loop will be connected from WTG01 to WTG08 to account for any loss of a WTG interconnection cable. A single main collector subsea cable will be laid from WTG08 to the Lakeshore transition pit. From the transition pit a single circuit comprising of three single core land cables will be laid to the HV side on the 34.5/11kV transformer(s). The wind farm cable array will operate at 34.5kV. This option offers partial redundancy within the wind farm cable array, with a single outgoing collector cable to carry the total load of the wind farm. The average cable size in the wind farm cable array will be increased compared to Option 1 (a) as the wind farm cables will be dimensioned to carry increased load in the event of loss of an inter-turbine cable array. Although this option will have reduced cable losses compared to Option 1(a), it will result in higher cable lengths and sizes, and therefore higher overall costs.
7.10.2
Option 2 Connection at Cleveland Power Plant Substation

The proposed cabling system single line diagram (SLD) for this option comprises of a single string of eight wind turbines laid out in cascaded interconnection format as shown in Figure 5 in Section 7.8 of this report, and Econnect Drawing No. 2128/001 in Appendix B. This option is the simplest of all the options considered for connection at the CPP Substation and does not offer redundancy. Optimised subsea 3-core cables will be dimensioned to carry the load according to the number of connected wind turbines in the particular interconnecting cable array. The outgoing subsea collector cable from WTG08 will carry the total generation output from the group of eight turbines to the HV side on the 34.5/69kV transformer(s) at CPP Substation without having to go through a transition to land cables. This is because CPP substation is located just by the lake-side. Accordingly the wind farm cable array for this option will operate at 34.5kV. Under this option the cable length and size required are minimised therefore this option has the lowest overall cost compared to other options for the wind farm connection at CPP Substation.

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option is presented in Figure 6 in Section 7.8 of this report. The wind turbines have been subdivided into two groups with one group comprising of WTG01, 02, 03 and 04 and the other group comprising of WTG05, 06, 07, and 08. The two groups are linked to each other via an interconnecting cable link between
Page 25 of 50
WTG04 and WTG05. Under normal operation, this link is Normally Open, and will only be closed in the event of a loss of an inter-turbine or main array cable. Two outgoing subsea collector cables will be connected each from WTG01 and WTG8 to the HV side on the 34.5/69kV transformer(s) at the CPP Substation. The wind farm cable array for this option will operate at 34.5kV. This option offers full redundancy and provides a balanced number of turbines per group of turbines. The average cable size in the cable array will be increased compared to Option 2(a) as cables will be dimensioned to carry increased load in the event of a loss of the inter-turbine or the main cable array. Although this option will have reduced cable losses compared to Option 2(a), it will result in increased cable lengths and sizes, and therefore higher overall costs.

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option is presented in Figure 7 in Section 7.8 of this report. As in Option 2(b), the wind turbines have been subdivided into two groups with one group comprising of WTG01, 02, 03 and 04 and the other group comprising of WTG05, 06, 07, and 08. The two groups are linked to each other via an interconnecting cable link between WTG04 and WTG05. Under normal operation, this link is Normally Open, and will only be closed in the event of a loss of an inter-turbine array cable. An additional interconnecting cable loop will be connected from WTG01 to WTG08 to cover for any loss of an inter-turbine cable array. A single main collector subsea cable will be laid from WTG08 to the HV side on the 34.5/69kV transformer(s). The wind farm cable array will operate at 34.5kV. This option offers partial redundancy but with a single outgoing collector cable to carry the total load of the wind farm. The average cable size in the wind farm cable array will be increased compared to Option 2(a) as the wind farm cables will be dimensioned to carry increased load in the event of loss of an inter-turbine cable array. Although this option will have reduced cable losses compared to Option 2(a), it will result in higher cable lengths and sizes, and therefore higher overall costs.
7.10.3
Option 3 Connection onto the Oglebay - Norton 36kV Overhead Line

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option comprises of a single string of eight wind turbines laid out in cascaded interconnection format as shown in Figure 5 in Section 7.8 of this report, and Econnect Drawing No. 2128/003 in Appendix D. This option is the simplest of all the options considered for connection onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL and does not offer redundancy. Optimised subsea 3-core cables will be dimensioned to carry the load according to the number of connected wind turbines in the particular interconnecting cable array. The outgoing collector cable from WTG08 will carry the total generation output from the group of eight turbines to the shorelink (transition pit) at Oglebay. From there it is proposed to lay a single circuit of 3 x single core land cables to the connection point on the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL. The wind farm cable array will therefore operate at 36kV. Under this option the cable length and size required are minimised therefore this option has the lowest overall cost compared to other options for the wind farm connection onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL.
Page 26 of 50

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option is presented in Figure 6 in Section 7.8 of this report. The wind turbines have been subdivided into two groups with one group comprising of WTG01, 02, 03 and 04 and the other group comprising of WTG05, 06, 07, and 08. The two groups are linked to each other via an interconnecting cable link between WTG04 and WTG05. Under normal operation, this link is Normally Open, and will only be closed in the event of a loss of an inter-turbine or main array cable. Two outgoing collector cables will be connected each from WTG01 and WTG8 to the shorelink at Oglebay. From the shorelink two circuits each comprising of 3 x single core land cables are to be laid to the connection point on the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL. The wind farm cable array will operate at 36kV. This option offers full redundancy and provides a balanced number of turbines per group of turbines. The average cable size in the cable array will be increased compared to option 3(a) as cables will be dimensioned to carry increased load in the event of a loss of the inter-turbine or main cable array. Although this option will have reduced cable losses compared to Option 3(a), it will result in increased cable lengths and sizes, and therefore higher overall costs.

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option is presented in Figure 7 in Section 7.8 of this report. As in Option 3(b), the wind turbines have been subdivided into two groups with one group comprising of WTG01, 02, 03 and 04 and the other group comprising of WTG05, 06, 07, and 08. The two groups are linked to each other via an interconnecting cable link between WTG04 and WTG05. Under normal operation, this link is Normally Open, and will only be closed in the event of a loss of an inter-turbine array cable. An additional interconnecting cable loop will be connected from WTG01 to WTG08 to cover for any loss of an inter-turbine cable array. A single main collector subsea cable will be laid from WTG08 to the Oglebay shorelink. From the shorelink a single circuit comprising of 3 x single core land cables will be laid to the connection point on the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL. The wind farm cable array will operate at 36kV. This option offers partial redundancy with a single outgoing collector cable to carry the total load of the wind farm. The average cable size in the wind farm cable array will be increased compared to Option 3 (a) as the wind farm cables will be dimensioned to carry increased load in the event of loss of an inter-turbine cable array. Although this option will have reduced cable losses compared to Option 3(a), it will result in higher cable lengths and sizes, and therefore higher overall costs.
7.10.4
Option 4 - Three-Turbine Wind Farm connection
7.10.4.1 Option 4(a) - Connection at Lake shore substation

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option comprises of a single string of three wind turbines laid out in cascaded interconnection format as shown in Figure 8 in Section 7.8 of this report. This option is simple and does not offer redundancy. Optimised subsea 3-core cables will be dimensioned to carry the load according to the number of connected wind turbines in the particular interconnecting cable array. The outgoing collector cable from WTG03 will carry the total generation output from the group of three turbines to the Lakeshore shorelink. From there it is proposed to lay a single circuit of 3 x single core land cables to the HV side on the 34.5/11kV transformer(s) at Lakeshore Substation. The wind farm cable array for this option will operate at 34.5kV. Under this option the cable length and size required are minimised therefore this option has lower overall cost compared to other options for the three-turbine wind farm connection.
Page 27 of 50
7.10.4.2 Option 4(b) - Connection at Cleveland Power Plant Substation

The proposed cabling system SLD for this option comprises of a single string of three wind turbines laid out in cascaded interconnection format as shown in Figure 8 in Section 7.8 of this report. This option is simple and does not offer redundancy. Optimised subsea 3-core cables will be dimensioned to carry the load according to the number of connected wind turbines in the particular interconnecting cable array. The outgoing collector cable from WTG03 will carry the total generation output from the group of three turbines to the HV side on the 34.5/69kV transformer(s) at CPP Substation. The wind farm cable array for this option will operate at 34.5kV. Under this option the cable length and size required are minimised, however due to the cable length involved, it is the most expensive option when compared to other connection options for the three-turbine wind farm.
7.10.4.3 Option 4(c) Overhead Line
Connection
onto
Oglebay-Norton
36kV
The proposed cabling system SLD for this option comprises of a single string of three wind turbines laid out in cascaded interconnection format as shown in Figure 9 below, and Econnect Drawing No. 2128/002 in Appendix C. This option is the simple and does not offer redundancy. Optimised subsea 3-core cables will be dimensioned to carry the load according to the number of connected wind turbines in the particular interconnecting cable array. The outgoing collector cable from WTG01 will carry the total generation output from the group of three turbines to the shorelink at Oglebay. From there it is proposed to lay a single circuit of 3 x single core land cables to the connection point on the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL. The wind farm cable array will operate at 36kV. Under this option the cable length and size required are minimised and therefore this option has a least cost than option 4(b) and 4(a) for the connection of the three-turbine wind farm.
7.11 36kV Collector cable selection

The minimum cable size is dictated by the expected maximum loading of the turbine array and the operating voltage level of the cable array under consideration. Tables 8 to 13 show the minimum conductor cross section areas (CSA) in mm2 required for specific loading conditions for the 34.5kV and 36kV operating voltages respectively. It can be observed that with minimum thermal cable rating as the sole selection criterion, it is possible for cables with sizes ranging from 95mm2 to 150mm2 to be used throughout the wind farm 36kV collector system array, depending on the number of turbines connected to each array and the collector array operating voltage. Where the cable grouping de-rating factor for two circuits that are installed in a single cable trench is applied there need to select the higher cable sizes. This aspect is however not applicable in this case as only a single circuit in the cable trench is proposed. The larger cable sizes are also necessary when designing the most optimised lifetime costs of a cable array configuration where both the capital supply costs and the lifetime losses of the cable array configuration are taken into account. Therefore cable sizes of 185mm2 and 240mm2 have been considered in the assessment.
Page 28 of 50
A: East site wind farm consideration Number of Turbines Required 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 Minimum Cable CSA Required (mm2) 95 95 95 95 95 95 120 150 185 240 Cable Rating (worst case) (A) 296 296 296 296 296 296 337 380 431 501 Cable Loading (worst case) (%) 16 32 47 63 79 95 97 99 87 88
Table 8: Minimum WF subsea collector cable system for 34.5kV system
Number of Turbines Required 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8
Minimum Cable CSA Required (mm2) 95 95 95 95 95 95 120 150 185 240
Cable Rating (worst case) (A) 296 296 296 296 296 296 337 380 431 501
Cable Loading (worst case) (%) 15 30 46 61 76 91 93 94 98 72
Table 9: Minimum WF subsea collector cable system for 36kV system
Cable array operating voltage (kV) 34.5 36 34.5 36
Number of Turbines Connected 8 8 8 8
Minimum Cable CSA Required (mm2) 150 120 185 185
Cable Rating (worst case) (A) 407 363 458 458
Cable Loading (worst case) (%) 92 99 96 92
Table 10: Minimum WF land collector cable system for 34.5kV and 36kV system
Page 29 of 50
B: 3-Turbine wind farm consideration Number of Turbines Required 1 2 3 Minimum Cable CSA Required (mm2) 95 95 95 Cable Rating (worst case) (A) 296 296 296 Cable Loading (worst case) (%) 16 32 47
Table 11: Minimum WF subsea collector cable system for 34.5kV system
Number of Turbines Connected 1 2 3
Minimum Cable CSA Required (mm2) 95 95 95
Cable Rating (worst case) (A) 296 296 296
Cable Loading (worst case) (%) 15 30 46
Table 12: Minimum WF subsea collector cable system for 36kV system
Cable array operating voltage (kV) 34.5 36
Number of Turbines Required 3 3
Minimum Cable CSA Required (mm2) 95 95
Cable Rating (worst case) (A) 296 296
Cable Loading (worst case) (%) 47 46
Table 13: Minimum land collector cable system for 34.5kV and 36kV system
It is not practical and cost effective to select an optimal cable size for each section of the collector cable circuit between two wind turbines, as this selection would result in the need to order small amounts of several different cable sizes. In order to achieve practical and cost effectiveness in the wind farm collector cabling system design and considering the size of the wind farm under study, a maximum of two different subsea cable array conductor sizes for each layout have been allowed for, in addition to the land cable conductor size in each option. Due to the short cable lengths involved in the three-turbine wind farm cable array, only a single subsea cable conductor size has been allowed for in addition to the land cable conductor size in each option considered. The above scenarios have been further analysed and the final cable selection results are presented in Section 10 of this report following a cost / losses assessment to select the optimal cable sizes as detailed in Section 9.
Page 30 of 50
8
8.1
Evaluation of the 36kV collector cabling system assessment

Introduction
In accordance with the Scope of Work, Econnect have been instructed to carry out a cable optimisation of the proposed collector cable system for Lake Erie Wind Farm for the following connection options: Option 1: Connection at Lakeshore Substation (cable array operating at 34.5kV) using the following wind farm locations: o East site location (8 x 2.5MW wind turbine) Option 2: Connection at CPP Substation (cable array operating at 34.5kV) using the following wind farm locations: o East site location (8 x 2.5MW wind turbine) Option 3: Connection onto the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL (cable array operating at 36kV) using the following wind farm locations o East site location (8 x 2.5MW wind turbine) Option 4: Connection at Lakeshore Substation (34.5kV), at CPP substation (34.5kV) and onto the Oglebay-Norton 36kV OHL o Three-turbine wind farm location (3 x 5MW)
For each of the above options, consideration has been given to the number of wind turbine 36kV collector circuits (loading current), underground cable optimum routes, prospective fault levels within the wind farm, agreed levels of redundancy, performance and life time costs (supply cost of cables plus cost of losses) of the copper conductor cables. The cable sizes have been optimised for carrying the specified power transfers in each inter-turbine and main cable array. Estimated 36kV cable data and supply costs obtained from reputable cable manufacturers and Econnects data base, have been used for the cable selection and optimisation, and the assessment provides a cable selection that is representative of the cables that would be supplied for this project. Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Section 7.8 of this report illustrate the respective cable array configurations used in this assessment, and as further discussed in Section 7.10 of this report.
8.2
Value of energy
Electrical losses can be expressed in terms of lost energy. Thus, if the monetary value of exported energy is quantified, the costs of losses can be used to identify the optimal trade-off between costs and losses. The cost parameter will be referred to as the value of energy. The value of energy can be usefully expressed in terms of the capitalised value of increasing the average annual energy yield of the wind farm by a unit amount. As such, it can be expressed in units of US dollars per annual megawatt-hour (US$/MWh per annum). The value of energy can be calculated by forecasting the future income stream arising from a unit export of energy, and discounting these revenues to give an equivalent present value. Table 14, below, details the data advised by Juwi [11] and used in the calculation of the value of energy.
Page 31 of 50
Value of exported energy Financial parameters
Value of energy Rate of escalation Project lifetime Project discount rate
US$150 per MWh 3% 25 years 10% per annum
Table 14: Data for calculating capitalised value of energy
Information provided by Juwi at this stage of the project [11] offers a range from US$100 /MWh to US$300 / MWh for the value of energy, which results in a capitalised value of energy ranging from US$1149.55 /MWh to US$3448.66/MWh respectively capitalised over a 25 year project lifetime. Therefore a conservative base value of energy of US$150 / MWh has been used in the calculation of the capitalised energy in this assessment study. Given the above data, the capitalised value of energy for this assessment stands at around US$1724.33 per annual MWh. This value of energy has been used in the assessment of the 36kV collector cabling system capitalisation cost for each of the design options.
8.3
Wind farm load factor
The wind farm load factor (or capacity factor) is a dimensionless factor which represents the wind farm generated power in a given year as a percentage of the wind farms potential full output power. The turbine load factor is a function of various other factors: a) the wind regime at the site b) the turbine power curve c) the turbine reactive power characteristic Juwi have suggested using a typical range of values from 28% to 35% for the wind farm load factor [11]. Given an outline design for the wind farm infrastructure system, it is relatively straightforward to calculate the instantaneous electrical loss of the wind farm 36kV collector cable system (measured in kW or MW) when all the turbines are operating at rated output. The wind farm load factor can then be applied to calculate the total electrical losses (in MWh) over a typical 12-month period. This result can then be used to evaluate the cost of the through-life losses using the appropriate value of energy. The annual energy loss can then be calculated using the formula: Annual energy loss (MWh/year) = wind farm load factor x Full load loss (MW) x 8760h/year.
Results of the assessment
Utilising the information from previous subsections, the total budget supply cost of the 36kV subsea and land cables, life-time cost of energy and total budget cost (supply cost + lifetime cost of losses) of the proposed cabling system for Options 1, 2, and 4, has been estimated using copper conductors. The least cost cable optimisation calculation results for Options 1(a) to 4(c) are included in Appendix D. The total budget costs for each option are summarised in Table 15 below with the lowest cost for each connection point or option highlighted in brown.
Page 32 of 50
Connection Option
Array cable operating voltage 34.5kV 34.5kV 34.5kV 34.5kV 34.5kV 34.5kV 36kV 36kV 36kV
Estimated installed capacity 20MW 20MW 20MW 20MW 20MW 20MW 20MW 20MW 20MW
Total budget cost US$(million)*1 4.400 9.604 6.314 4.858 10.516 6.648 6.094 12.933 8.046
Estimated cost per MW installed US$(x1000)*1 220 480 316 243 526 332 305 647 402
Option 1 Connection of eight turbine wind farm at Lakeshore Substation 1 (a) 1 (b) 1 (c) 2 (a) 2 (b) 2 (c) 3 (a) 3 (b) 3 (c)
Option 2Connection of eight turbine wind farm at CPP Substation
Option 3Connection of eight turbine wind farm onto Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL
Option 4Connection of three turbine wind farm (Lakeshore /CPP / Oglebay) 4 (a) 4 (b) 4 (c)
1
34.5kV 34.5kV 36kV
15MW 15MW 15MW
3.812 4.182 3.539
254 279 236
Table 15: Budget cost summary
* As indicated in Section 5 of this report, it must be noted that the total budget costs
indicated include only the estimated cable supply costs based on general pricing data obtained from reputable cable manufacturers and Senergy-Econnects data base, and the costs of losses, and do not cover the cable installation costs as these would be subject to detailed lakebed surveys. The above costs have therefore been included only for the purpose of relative cost comparisons for different options in order to optimise the wind farm collector cabling system design.
The assessment in this report has been based on a base value of energy of US$150 per MWh, and the wind farm load factor range of 28% to 35%, as discussed in Section 8. A sensitivity analysis carried out in this assessment has showed that a load factor of 35% yields a worst case scenario. It is therefore possible that smaller size cables could be used for the wind farm collector cable system if the wind farm load factor is maintained at or about 28%. It is also worth noting that whilst Options 1(a), 2(a) and 3(a) are cheaper compared to other cable array configurations for each connection option, these do not offer redundancy. All connection proposals in Option 4 also do not offer redundancy. However if partial or full redundancy is required, the cable lengths (and therefore capital costs) would increase significantly, although the cable sizes would most likely remain the same in each option.
Page 33 of 50
(i) For the eight wind turbine wind farm: By comparison, and considering Options 1, 2 and 3 for the connection of the eight wind turbine turbines, it can be seen that the supply cost of cable, lifetime cost of cable losses and the total (supply cost + lifetime cost of losses) using 36kV with copper conductors is the least expensive for Option 1(a) utilising the cable sizes shown in Table 16 below: Connection option Option 1 (a) -Connection to Lakeshore Substation Wind Farm Interturbine subsea cable array 95mm2 (1x3core cable) Subsea collector cable to Lakeshore shorelink 240mm2 (1x 3core cable) Land cable 240mm2 (3x 1core cable)
Table 16: Optimised cable selection for the eight turbine wind farm array
This connection option, 1(a), requires about 1.7 miles of 95mm2 inter-turbine connection cable, 3.7 miles of 240mm2 main collector subsea cable and approximately 0.5 mile of 240mm2 land cable. (ii) For the three wind turbine wind farm: By comparison, and considering Options 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) for the connection of the three wind turbine turbines, it is noted that the supply cost of cable, lifetime cost of cable losses and the total cost (supply cost + lifetime cost of losses) using 36kV with copper conductors shown in Table 17 provides the least expensive option. Connection Option Option 4 (c) -Connection to Oglebay-Norton 36kV OHL Wind Farm Interturbine subsea cable array 240mm2 (1x3core cable) Subsea collector cable to Oglebay shorelink 240mm2 (1x 3core cable) Land cable from shorelink to Oglebay/Norton 36kV OHL 240mm2 (3x1core cable)
Table 17: Optimised cable selection for the three turbine wind farm array
This connection option, 4(c), requires about 5.4 miles of 240mm2 inter-turbine connection cable and main collector subsea cable and approximately 0.2 miles of 240mm2 land cable. It is therefore concluded that the collector subsea cable array for Lake Erie Offshore wind farm with eight wind turbines, be implemented using the cables with 95mm2 and 240mm2 copper conductors as shown in Table 16 above. The wind farm array cable configuration should be in accordance with Option 1 (a) shown in Econnect Drawing No. 2128/001 in Appendix B, which shows a 34.5kV busbar connection at the Lakeshore substation. It is also concluded that the collector cable array for Lake Erie Offshore wind farm with three wind turbines, be implemented using the cables with 240mm2 copper conductors as shown in Table 17 above. The wind farm array cable configuration should be in accordance with Option 4 (c) shown in Econnect Drawing No. 2128/002 in Appendix C, which shows a connection to the Oglebay Norton 36kV OHL.
Page 34 of 50
10
36kV cable offshore and onshore installation
10.1 Offshore 36kV array cables 10.1.1 Offshore cable installation equipment
The installation of subsea cables requires specialised ships with sophisticated dynamic positioning systems and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs). These vessels are tailored to suit the various installation requirements (cable type, sea depth, type of ROV, etc) and are fitted with cable handling facilities including a large rotating platform to store the cable and feed it to the cable laying equipment. Jointing of the subsea cables should be minimised as far as possible in order to avoid introducing contaminants that may affect the efficacy of the insulation and lead to early failure. Transporting and loading these long, heavy lengths of cable onto the ships requires careful planning. Since these long lengths of cable are not easily transported, the cable laying ship will be required to load additional cable at a port that is close to where the cable was originally manufactured.
10.1.2
Offshore cable installation overview
Detailed surveying of the cable route is required to determine the burial conditions required for the array cables. As well as the geology of the seabed, route considerations must be taken into account of existing services (e.g. oil and gas pipelines, telecom cables, water intake and sewer pipes, etc) and special features such as environmentally sensitive areas at the cable landing points, etc. The result of the survey should enable selection of optimal ship/ROV combination for the local conditions. Subsea cables are protected with steel armour, however this may not afford sufficient protection against hazards such as seabed variations, dredging and fishing activities, dropped or dragged ship anchors and other heavy objects. Burial of subsea cables is the best form of protection against most hazards and the burial depth depends on the degree of protection required. In this assessment a burial depth of 4.9ft (1.5m) below the seabed surface has been used which is a typical burial depth for such installations. The degree of cable protection may also be increased by means of rock cover over the cable route. The degree of protection required is obviously specific to the location under consideration and will require a detailed engineering assessment of the lakebed conditions which will include, but not limited to, the identification of the types and the locations of potential hazards, as indicated in Section 7.3 of this assessment. Such an assessment is outside the scope of this report. It is however noted that according to information available on the public domain website [10], Lake Erie has the highest density of shipping traffic compared to the other Great Lakes. In addition, it is the shallowest and roughest of these lakes and also contains the most known shipwrecks, hence the requirement for a detailed seabed survey at the detailed design stage of the project. The array cables are generally located within the wind farm area and as such are partly protected by the presence of the wind turbines themselves. Hazards that are nonetheless likely to be encountered for both wind farm interconnection cables and the main offshoreonshore export cables, include but are not limited to; fishing activities, vessel traverses, anchoring of work vessels under strict anchor placement controls, heavy lifting operations due to installation or maintenance of equipment (and dropped objects may also be possible during this stage), and sediment movements (i.e. leading to possible exposure of cables). A detailed cable installation study will be required to determine the most adequate burial depth to be used for the installation of the wind farm 36kV reticulation system, especially in the water channels where heavy dredging may exist.
Page 35 of 50
For subsea cable burial, two main cable installation techniques are available which are (a) ploughing, and (b) jetting. (a) Ploughing Figure 10 below shows a schematic diagram of a ploughing operation.
Figure 10: Ploughing operation
With this installation technique, the cable is fed down from the ship to a barge, through the plough and onto the seabed. The blade of the plough protrudes below the seabed surface. The plough is pulled towards the laying vessel and the blade displaces the lakebed in a manner similar to a conventional farming plough and allows the cable to fall into position. With this method, the lakebed disturbance is kept to a minimum and very little sediment is generated. However, controlling a plough can be difficult and the risk of cable damage is high, particularly if a laying problem is encountered. A review of the plant inventories held by subsea cable installers has shown that many ploughs are not suitable for use with larger cable sizes of diameters of 200mm and above. New large capacity plough designs may have to be developed.
Page 36 of 50
(b)
Jetting
An alternative to ploughing is the use of water jetting. Figure 11 below shows water jetting in progress.
Figure 11: Jetting equipment in operation
Although jetting causes more sediment disturbance it is however accepted as a subsea cable installation technique in many parts of the world. The typical width of a jetted trench is 300mm. With a burial depth of say, 3.28feet (1m), a volume of 0.3m3 of seabed is displaced for each meter length of cable. Users of jetting equipment claim that often up to 100% of the trench is back filled by the sediment settling back down. However, this is highly dependent upon the sea current. In any case the original seabed compaction would not be restored and considerable sediment displacement is a possibility. As with ploughing, new designs of jetting equipment suitable for cables with 200mm diameter and above, is under consideration. In general, with the exception of rock, ploughing is suitable for most types of seabed material. The higher the shear force of the seabed, the greater is the weight of plough that is required and the greater is the required pulling tension. Light jetting can be used for sand and some light to medium clays. Sometimes several passes are necessary to obtain the required burial depth. In the event that rock is encountered on the seabed, the use of rock cutting equipment will be necessary. Ploughs with saws can be used for softer rock types and ploughs with cutting wheels can be used for harder rocks. However under the circumstances, seabed disturbance and noise are likely to be greater than when conventional ploughs or jetting equipment are used. A typical installation methodology for offshore cable installation in the J-tube is included in Appendix E.
Page 37 of 50
10.1.2.1 Offshore cable burial

For the main cable runs back from the end turbine in a string towards the shorelink, ploughing could be used for most of the way. For the inter-turbine cables, it is likely that access would be difficult for a plough and the risk of cable damage would be high. Therefore it is recommended that jetting should be used for these connections. Several passes of the jetting equipment may be necessary to achieve the required depth. Adjacent to the base of the turbine or shorelink structures, rock placement could be used if required. An alternative to the above methodology is to use a combined cable laying and burial machine. This is shown in Figure 12 below and the cable drum can be seen mounted on the machine. The choice of machinery would be dependent upon the lakebed conditions.
Figure 12: Combined subsea array cable laying and burial machine
10.2 Onshore 36kV cable installation

In order to effect the transition between the subsea three core cables to the three single core onshore cables, a large transition pit (shorelink) will need to be constructed close to the onshore landing point and above the high water mark, within which the land and subsea cables can be joined. From this point to the proposed point of connection, the cable will be direct buried in trefoil formation (touching), at a nominal burial depth of 2.6ft and will be bonded and earthed at both ends in accordance with applicable standards. The integrated optical fibre cable from the transition pit will be run separately from the power cable (no longer integrated as in subsea cables) although it will be within the same cable trench as the single core land cables.
Page 38 of 50
Senergy Econnect Drawing 2128/101 in Appendix F provides a typical 33/36kV cable trench profile. As part of a detailed route survey, the soil should be analysed for its thermal properties. If it is suitable (i.e. its thermal resistivity is consistent and in line with the design parameters that have been used to in this report for the calculation of the cable ratings) it can be used to backfill the trenches after installation. If it is not suitable it should be dumped and replaced with some selected sand that does possess the required thermal properties. The soil should be checked to ensure it is free from sharp stones that could cause cable damage. In practice, it would be expected that some selected sand would be necessary.
11
Conclusion of the assessment
The findings of the cable assessment have been confirmed and verified through cable optimisation calculations and the summary of the results is included in Appendix D. Following the wind farm collector cable optimisation and selection assessment detailed in this report as part of the overall feasibility for Lake Erie Offshore wind farm, it is concluded that the collector cable array for Lake Erie Offshore wind farm with eight wind turbines, be implemented using the subsea cables with 95mm2 and 240mm2 copper conductors as shown in Table 16 above. Connection of the East site eight-turbine offshore wind farm to the Lakeshore Substation provides the lowest project lifetime cost option, and therefore the most optimum connection option. The lowest cost wind farm array cable configuration should be in accordance with Option 1 (a) shown in Econnect Drawing No. 2128/001 in Appendix B. It is also concluded that the collector cable array (subsea and land) for Lake Erie Offshore wind farm with three wind turbines, be implemented using the cables with 240mm2 copper conductors as shown in Table 17 above. Connection of the three-turbine offshore wind farm to the Oglebay-Norton 36kV OHL provides the project lifetime least cost option, and therefore the most optimum connection option. The lowest cost wind farm array cable configuration should be in accordance with Option 4 (c) shown in Econnect Drawing No. 2128/002 in Appendix C.
Page 39 of 50
12
[1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Consulting Agreement between JW Great Lakes Wind LLC and Senergy Econnect Ltd. (Reference Scope of Works) Monthly Progress Report, 24th July to 21st August 2008, issued to Juwi by Econnect Consulting on 22/08/2008. Email from Peter Endres of Juwi to Zwelibanzi Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd dated 27 August 2008, and entitled Three-Turbine Layout and co-ordinates Email from Justin Ray of Black and Veatch to Zwelibanzi Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd dated 27 August 2008, and entitled 2128 Lake Erie Offshore WF Cable Design; with reference to the voltage variation limits on the distribution network Email from Peter Endres of Juwi to Wilhelm Heckmann of GL Group dated 29 October 2008, and entitled Lake Erie Technical Specification Cable route (and copied to Zweli Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd) Email from Justin Ray of Black and Veatch to Zwelibanzi Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd dated 16 September 2008, and entitled Lake Erie Interconnection update; with reference to the transformer voltage ratio of 34.5/69kV at the CPP Substation. Email from Peter Endres of Juwi to Zwelibanzi Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd dated 15 September 2008, and entitled 2128 Lake Erie Offshore WF Collector Cable Design; with reference to the burial depth of water intake pipes Email from Peter Endres of Juwi to Zwelibanzi Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd dated 18 October 2008, and entitled Report comments and moving ahead (Reference details of water intake pipes, Outfall pipes and draft report comments) Internet website providing the geography and other general details about Lake Erie in Cleveland, USA; http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/Lsake_Erie ERA Technology Ltd, Rating cables in J-Tubes, ERA Project 24-03-1913, March 1988 Email from Peter Endres of Juwi to Zwelibanzi Ndlovu of Senergy Econnect Ltd dated 20 August 2008, and entitled 2128 JUWI Lake Erie Offshore Wind Farm: Economic Parameters Email from Peter Endres of Juwi to Fisher Gundula of GL-Group (and copied to Zweli of Senergy Econnect) dated 14 November 2008, and entitled Cost assessment and cable reports (in regard to confirmation of cable route lengths)
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] [10] [11]
[12]
Page 40 of 50
13
Appendix A: Subsea and Land Power Cable Technical Parameters
Page 41 of 50
Page 42 of 50
14
Appendix B: Option 1(a) Single line drawing
Page 43 of 50
15
Appendix C: Option 4 (c) Single Line Drawings
Page 44 of 50
16
Appendix D: Cable optimisation calculation results
Options 1(a)
Note: The calculations spreadsheet uses cable lengths in kilometres (km) converted from miles using a conversion factor of 5 miles = 8 km
Page 45 of 50
Options 4(c)
Note: The calculations spreadsheet uses cable lengths in kilometres (km) converted from miles using a conversion factor of 5 miles = 8 km
Page 46 of 50
17
Appendix E - Typical Installation method for Offshore cable in J-tube

The laying vessel should position itself near to the turbine J-tube entrance o The vessel would most likely be a dumb barge as a result of depth and access restrictions
A methodology for installing the cable into a J-tube is as follows:
A pulling bond installed would be fed down the J-tube and attached by divers onto the pulling head of the leading end of the cable Slack cable should be fed from the laying vessel onto the lakebed using one of the following methods: o o o Snaking the cable over lifting quadrants positioned such that they can be lowered into the lake to provide the required cable Flaking the cable onto the lakebed forming a lazy S ensuring that the cable minimum bending radius is not compromised during the process Floatation and direct feed into the J-tube bell mouth
The cable should be pulled into the J-tube by means of the previously installed wire bond. o o The pull should be performed at slack water The cable and a sufficient overlength should be suitably anchored at the top of the J-tube The barge should move towards the next J-tube (next turbine), paying out cable as it goes The barge should be controlled by kedge anchors paid out off the barges quarters The above process should be repeated
Laying of cable on the lakebed o o
Installation into the J-tube at the other end of the cable run o
Page 47 of 50
18
Appendix F: Typical onshore 33kV cable trench profile
Page 48 of 50
Page 49 of 50
Energising Renewables A subsidiary of Senergy Alternative Energy Company Registration number SC347794 Registered Office: Exchange Tower, 19 Canning Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8EH, U.K.
Page 50 of 50

GLWEC Offshore Cabling System Design 01142009

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

GLWEC Offshore Cabling System Design 01142009

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study High Voltage Cabling System Design Senergy -Econnect project

History of Changes Version

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Option 1 (a) Option 4 (c)

Table 1: Estimated summary of the lowest (capitalised) cable cost

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

This study will evaluate offshore electrical connection potential and

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Assumptions used in the assessment

The following assumptions have been made:

Exclusions from the assessment

This assessment study will exclude the following:

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Wind farm location and relation to local distribution networks

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

3.2 3.9 5.3 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.6

3.8 4.5 3.8 0.3 0.2

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Conceptual design of wind farm collector cabling system

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Desktop route survey

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Figure 2: Location of harbour breakwall

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Figure 3: Access water channels and Sewer Outfall pipes

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Figure 4: Kirtland and Morgan water intake pipes

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Installed cable operating conditions

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Fault Level considerations

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Basis for Turbine maximum continuous loading

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Table 6: Estimated maximum loading of turbine cable array at 34.5kV

No. of turbines connected via cable 1 x turbine 1 x turbine

Table 7: Estimated maximum loading of turbine cable array at 36kV

Proposed wind farm cable array configurations

Figure 5: Cable array configuration (a)

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Figure 6: Cable array configuration (b)

Figure 7: Cable array configuration (c)

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Figure 8: Three-turbine cable array configuration (Options 4a & 4b)

Figure 9: Three-turbine cable array configuration (Options 4c)

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

Redundancy and re-configurability

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

7.10.1.1 Wind farm layout in Option 1(a)

7.10.1.2 Wind farm layout in Option 1(b)

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

7.10.1.3 Wind farm layout in Option 1(c)

Option 2 Connection at Cleveland Power Plant Substation

7.10.2.1 Wind farm layout in Option 2(a)

7.10.2.2 Wind farm layout in Option 2(b)

2128 JUWI - Lake Erie Offshore WF Cabling System Design v4-0.doc

7.10.2.3 Wind farm layout in Option 2(c)

Option 3 Connection onto the Oglebay - Norton 36kV Overhead Line

7.10.3.1 Wind farm layout in Option 3(a)