FACULTEIT

INGENIEURSWETENSCHAPPEN

________________

KATHOLIEKE
UNIVERSITEIT
LEUVEN

Eindwerk voorgedragen tot het behalen van

het diploma van Burgerlijk werktuigkundig-
elektrotechnisch ingenieur (Master in de
ingenieurswetenschappen: energie)

Bram Van Eeckhout

Promotor:
Prof. Dr. Ir. Ronnie Belmans

Dagelijkse begeleiding:
Ir. Dirk Van Hertem

2007 – 2008
© Copyright K.U.Leuven

Zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van zowel de promotor(en) als de auteur(s) is overnemen,
kopiëren, gebruiken of realiseren van deze uitgave of gedeelten ervan verboden. Voor aanvragen tot of
informatie i.v.m. het overnemen en/of gebruik en/of realisatie van gedeelten uit deze publicatie, wend U
tot de K.U.Leuven, Departement Elektrotechniek – ESAT, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001 Heverlee
(België). Telefoon +32-16-32 11 30 & Fax. +32-16-32 19 86 of via email: info@esat.kuleuven.be.

Voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de promotor(en) is eveneens vereist voor het aanwenden van
de in dit afstudeerwerk beschreven (originele) methoden, producten, schakelingen en programma’s voor
industrieel of commercieel nut en voor de inzending van deze publicatie ter deelname aan
wetenschappelijke prijzen of wedstrijden.

© Copyright by K.U.Leuven

Without written permission of the promotor(s) and the author(s) it is forbidden to reproduce or adapt in
any form or by any means any part of this publication. Requests for obtaining the right to reproduce or
utilize parts of this publication should be addressed to K.U.Leuven, Departement Elektrotechniek –
ESAT, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001 Heverlee (Belgium). Tel. +32-16-32 11 30 & Fax. +32-16-32
19 86 or by email: info@esat.kuleuven.be.

A written permission of the promotor(s) is also required to use the methods, products, schematics and
programs described in this work for industrial or commercial use, and for submitting this publication in
scientific contests.

ii
PREFACE

Finishing a master thesis brings feelings of relief. The months of work to achieve the end result are
behind. It is also a milestone in a persons life and new horizons arise in the form of the start of a career as
a young engineer. It is therefore an ideal moment to thank the people who made all of this possible.

First of all, I would like to thank my thesis promotor Prof. Dr. Ir. R. Belmans. It is a great honor to realize
a master thesis together with a Professor with such a knowledge, experience and inspiring thoughts. I
need to thank him especially for giving me the opportunity to directly cooperate with ABB. This
cooperation added a connection between this thesis and the industrial reality, which I personally
experienced as extremely valuable.

Directly connected with this, I am very thankful to the people at ABB Corporate Research Center in
Västerås, Sweden, for the given opportunities. I especially want to thank my supervisors Dr. Muhamad
Reza and Dr. Kailash Srivastava at CRC. The three months I worked in Västerås helped me to better
understand the subject and added an extra dimension, the one of industrial experience, to this thesis work.

Many thanks go as well to Ir. Dirk Van Hertem, my daily supervisor at KU Leuven. The discussions that
we held on the subject, either early or late for one of us, or either face-to-face or online, brought me each
time new ideas and insights, and the will and courage to persist.

Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to the people who always supported me from the
sideline, not only during the work for this master thesis, but during my whole study period at KU Leuven.
First of all my parents, thank you for letting me become the engineer that I always wanted to become.
Thanks as well to my sister Fien for showing me the way to Leuven. And then, there are many precious
friends to thank, especially Julie, for always being there for me. I really hope we all stay in touch,
whatever ways our future careers might bring us, and hence I hope the bonds we have now yield a
‘friendship for life’.

iii
ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates the use of Voltage Source Converter HVDC for the connection of offshore wind
farms with the onshore transmission grid and makes a comparison with HVAC on a techno-economic
basis. A typical future wind farm is proposed, rated at 300 MW and situated 50 km from the Point of
Common Coupling to compare both technologies. The main criteria for the technical comparison are the
losses, the realization of possible grid code requirements and the black start capability needed to start up
the offshore wind farm. The black start capability and variable frequency operation of VSC HVDC make
soft startup of the wind farm possible and give opportunities for wind farm topology optimization and
simplification. This allows for the use of directly connected (without converter) induction generators.
Variable speed operation is achieved by varying the frequency in the wind farm grid. The economic
comparison takes into account the investment costs, losses and annual maintenance. The main wind
turbine topologies are incorporated in the economic analysis. The sensitivity of the results obtained in the
economic comparison is investigated to variation of input parameters (cable length, converter loss,
offshore converter volume, cost of energy). This resulted in an estimation of cable break-even lengths for
the comparison of VSC HVDC with HVAC topologies.

iv
SUMMARY

The planned offshore wind farms of today have reached power ratings of several hundred MW and are
situated tens of kilometers from shore. These power ratings and distances require a separate transmission
system at an elevated voltage compared to the wind farm collection grid voltage. The traditionally used
transmission technology between an offshore wind farm and the onshore grid is High Voltage Alternating
Current (HVAC). Voltage Source Converter (VSC) HVDC is proposed by two companies (ABB and
Siemens) as an alternative solution. This thesis compares the use of VSC HVDC and HVAC for the
connection of offshore wind farms with the onshore transmission grid.

VSC HVDC has several technical advantages over HVAC. The important features in this context are the
control of active and reactive power, the possibility to connect grids with asynchronous voltages and the
black start capability. Grids with differing frequencies can be connected using VSC HVDC. Several wind
turbine topologies are still under consideration for offshore use, others are reconsidered in combination
with VSC HVDC. The characteristics of VSC HVDC make simplification or economic optimization of
the offshore wind farm possible for each wind turbine topology.

A typical future wind farm is used in the comparison, rated at 300 MW and situated 50 km from the Point
of Common Coupling (PCC). VSC HVDC is first compared with HVAC on a technical basis. The main
criteria for the comparison are the losses of both systems, the realization of the grid code requirements
and the black start capability needed to start up the offshore wind farm. The losses are higher for VSC
HVDC (4,45% of Annual Produced Energy (APE)) than for HVAC (3,31% of APE) for this cable length.
The analysis for other cable lengths shows a break-even distance for the losses of 80 km. The probability
distribution of wind speeds is taken into account in the loss calculation.

Grid code requirements on power factor control, frequency response and voltage dip ride-through are
discussed in this thesis. No additional equipment is needed with VSC HVDC to achieve power factor
control. The HVAC option needs additional reactive compensators, which results in an elevated
transmission system cost. The use of VSC HVDC results in improved frequency response and voltage dip
ride-through capability for an offshore wind farm with any topology. The realization of these grid code
requirements for a wind farm connected to the shore with HVAC depends on the used wind turbine
topologies and is not enhanced by the transmission link.

The black start capability of VSC HVDC makes soft startup of the wind farm possible and gives
opportunities for energy output optimization. It is possible to operate the wind farm grid at variable
frequency during low wind speed periods, hereby implementing variable-speed operation of the wind
turbines in a cost-efficient way. The use of HVAC results in a fixed frequency operation of the wind
farm. Variable-speed operation is then only achieved after the installation of a power electronic converter

v
in each wind turbine.

VSC HVDC is compared with HVAC on an economic basis as well. Only cost data from public domain
are used in the economic comparison. The economic comparison is based on a Discounted Cash Flow
(DCF) calculation taking into account the difference in investment costs and annual costs and benefits.
Two economic comparisons are performed.

In the first case, the investor of the transmission system is assumed to be another party than the investor
of the wind farm. This situation is for example applicable in Germany, where the transmission system
operator is responsible for the connection of offshore wind farms. The possible advantages of VSC
HVDC resulting in a more optimal wind farm are irrelevant for the transmission system investor. VSC
HVDC and HVAC are therefore evaluated only on their electricity transmission function. The investment
costs for both systems are compared, together with the annual monetary costs of the losses and the
maintenance of the transmission system. VSC HVDC is fount not economically feasible for a 300 MW
wind farm situated 50 km from the PCC.

In the second case, the wind farm investor and the transmission system investor are the same party and a
total system economic optimum is looked for. The wind farm topology is therefore optimized according
to the technical advantages of VSC HVDC. The use of directly connected induction generators in a
variable frequency wind farm, governed by the VSC HVDC link, is chosen in this thesis. This system is
compared to the main variable-speed topologies (DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG) in combination with
HVAC. The solution with VSC HVDC is found to be economically feasible compared to HVAC/DFIG
and HVAC/DDPMSG. HVAC/GPMSG is more cost-efficient than the VSC HVDC solution.

The sensitivity of the results obtained during the economic comparison is investigated for variation of
input parameters (cable length, cost of energy, converter loss, offshore converter volume). This resulted
in an estimation of break-even lengths between VSC HVDC and HVAC cables. In the first case, with
different investors, the break-even distance is 80 km. In the second case, the break-even distance depends
on the used topology with HVAC: 32 km for DFIG, <25 km for DDPMSG and 68 km for GPMSG. For
cable lengths longer than the break-even distance, the VSC HVDC solution becomes more economically
feasible, whereas HVAC is more feasible for shorter cable lengths.

The cost of energy is an uncertain parameter in the economic analysis. It is used to monetize the losses in
the transmission system and the differences in annual energy output for the different wind farm
topologies. The result is therefore recalculated for different values (40, 80, 120 and 160 €/MWh).

VSC HVDC is still a young technology compared to HVAC. Technological progress can be expected on
the fields of converter losses and offshore substation volume. This has a positive effect for VSC HVDC in
the economic comparison with HVAC.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... I

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. IV

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................V

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................VII

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................X

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................XII

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. XIII

1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................1
1.1 PURPOSE & SCOPE ...........................................................................................................................1
1.2 STRUCTURE .....................................................................................................................................2
2 TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION TO VSC HVDC..........................................................................3
2.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................3
2.2 COMPARISON OF VSC HVDC WITH HVAC AND LCC HVDC.......................................................3
2.2.1 Comparison between HVAC and HVDC cable systems .........................................................3
2.2.2 Comparison between LCC HVDC and VSC HVDC ..............................................................5
2.3 OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF VSC HVDC.........................................................................................6
2.3.1 Control of AC voltage amplitude and frequency.....................................................................7
2.3.2 Control of active and reactive power.......................................................................................8
2.4 TECHNICAL ADVANTAGES ............................................................................................................10
2.4.1 Power flow control ................................................................................................................10
2.4.2 Grid voltage support and power system stability ..................................................................11
2.4.3 Black start capability .............................................................................................................11
2.4.4 Connection of asynchronous grids.........................................................................................13
2.4.5 Voltage dip ride-through and power quality..........................................................................14
2.4.6 Cable choice ..........................................................................................................................14
2.5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................14
3 OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGIES AND THEIR USE WITH VSC HVDC..........15
3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................15
3.2 OFFSHORE WIND TRENDS ..............................................................................................................15
3.3 WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGIES .........................................................................................................19
3.3.1 Fixed-speed wind turbines.....................................................................................................19
3.3.2 Variable-speed wind turbines ................................................................................................21
3.4 COMBINATION OF TRADITIONAL WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGIES WITH VSC HVDC .......................27
3.4.1 Squirrel Cage Induction Generators ......................................................................................27
3.4.2 Doubly-Fed Induction Generators .........................................................................................30
3.4.3 Direct-Drive Synchronous Generators ..................................................................................31
3.5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................32
4 ENERGY OUTPUT OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES ...........................................................33
4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................33
4.2 POWER PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION ....................................................................................33
vii
 4.3 ENERGY OUTPUT OF WIND TURBINES............................................................................................35
4.4 MULTI TURBINE FREQUENCY APPROACH ......................................................................................36
4.5 DRIVE-TRAIN EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................................39
4.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................40
5 DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF VSC HVDC AND HVAC ................................41
5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................41
5.2 DIMENSIONING OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FOR AN OFFSHORE WIND FARM .........................41
5.2.1 VSC HVDC ...........................................................................................................................42
5.2.2 HVAC....................................................................................................................................43
5.3 BLACK START OF A WIND FARM ....................................................................................................46
5.3.1 VSC HVDC ...........................................................................................................................46
5.3.2 HVAC....................................................................................................................................47
5.4 REACTIVE POWER REQUIREMENTS ON THE OFFSHORE NODE .......................................................48
5.4.1 Directly connected induction generators ...............................................................................48
5.4.2 Generators connected via a converter....................................................................................49
5.5 GRID CODE COMPLIANCE AT THE POINT OF COMMON COUPLING ...............................................50
5.5.1 Reactive power or power factor control ................................................................................50
5.5.2 Frequency response ...............................................................................................................54
5.5.3 Voltage-dip ride through capability.......................................................................................55
5.6 LOSSES ..........................................................................................................................................58
5.6.1 VSC HVDC ...........................................................................................................................58
5.6.2 HVAC....................................................................................................................................60
5.6.3 Influence of length of transmission cable..............................................................................66
5.7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................68
6 ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF VSC HVDC AND HVAC FOR THE CONNECTION OF
OFFSHORE WIND FARMS............................................................................................................69
6.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................69
6.2 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INVESTMENT COST .................................................................................70
6.2.1 VSC HVDC ...........................................................................................................................70
6.2.2 HVAC....................................................................................................................................72
6.2.3 Comparison of investment cost .............................................................................................74
6.3 ANNUAL COSTS .............................................................................................................................75
6.3.1 Losses in the transmission system to shore ...........................................................................75
6.3.2 Maintenance costs of the transmission system ......................................................................75
6.4 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 1 ....................................................................76
6.5 WIND FARM INVESTMENT COSTS ..................................................................................................76
6.5.1 Generator cost........................................................................................................................77
6.5.2 Gearbox cost ..........................................................................................................................77
6.5.3 Converter cost........................................................................................................................77
6.6 ANNUAL COSTS AND REVENUES OF AN OFFSHORE WIND FARM....................................................78
6.6.1 Energy output of wind farm...................................................................................................78
6.6.2 Annual maintenance cost wind farm .....................................................................................78
6.7 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 2 ....................................................................79
6.7.1 VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DFIG ...............................................................80
6.7.2 VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DDPMSG........................................................80
6.7.3 VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with GPMSG...........................................................81
6.7.4 Discussion..............................................................................................................................81
6.8 RELEVANCE OF THE RESULTS .......................................................................................................82
6.9 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................82
7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................83
7.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................83

viii
 7.2 DISTANCE BETWEEN WIND FARM AND PCC .................................................................................83
7.2.1 VSC HVDC compared to HVAC – Scenario 1 .....................................................................83
7.2.2 VSC HVDC with SCIG compared to HVAC with other topologies – Scenario 2 ................84
7.3 COST OF ENERGY...........................................................................................................................86
7.3.1 VSC HVDC compared to HVAC – Scenario 1 .....................................................................86
7.3.2 VSC HVDC with SCIG compared to HVAC with other topologies – Scenario 2 ................87
7.4 CONVERTER STATION LOSSES OF VSC HVDC .............................................................................89
7.5 CONVERTER VOLUME....................................................................................................................89
7.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................90
8 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................91

9 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................93

10 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................101
10.1 APPENDIX A – MATLAB MODEL ..............................................................................................101
10.2 APPENDIX B – ROTATIONAL SPEED RANGE .............................................................................102
10.3 APPENDIX C – CAPACITY FACTORS .........................................................................................103
10.4 APPENDIX D – HVAC OFFSHORE SUBSTATION .......................................................................104

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1 COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR AC AND DC TRANSMISSION CABLES....................4

FIGURE 2.2 COMPONENTS OF VSC HVDC TERMINAL ....................................................................6
FIGURE 2.3 SCHEME OF 2-LEVEL 3-PHASE VOLTAGE SOURCE CONVERTER BRIDGE ..........7
FIGURE 2.4 2-LEVEL CONVERTER SINGLE PHASE OUTPUT VOLTAGE......................................7
FIGURE 2.5 SCHEME OF 3-LEVEL 3-PHASE VOLTAGE SOURCE CONVERTER BRIDGE ..........8
FIGURE 2.6 3-LEVEL CONVERTER SINGLE PHASE OUTPUT VOLTAGE......................................8
FIGURE 2.7 POWER CONTROL OF VSC WITH PHASE REACTOR ..................................................9
FIGURE 2.8 P,Q-CAPABILITY CHART OF VSC HVDC LINK ..........................................................10
FIGURE 3.1 OFFSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE .............................................16
FIGURE 3.2 FIXED-SPEED INDUCTION GENERATOR WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGY................19
FIGURE 3.3 COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE AS FUNCTION OF WITH AS A
PARAMETER......................................................................................................................22
FIGURE 3.4 POWER OUTPUT OF FIXED-SPEED AND VARIABLE-SPEED WIND TURBINE AS
A FUNCTION OF WIND SPEED.......................................................................................23
FIGURE 3.5 DOUBLY-FED INDUCTION GENERATOR WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGY ...............24
FIGURE 3.6 DIRECT-DRIVE SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGY .....25
FIGURE 3.7 PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION OF WIND SPEED OFFSET WITH DISTANCE
FROM MASTER TURBINE D AS A PARAMETER ........................................................29
FIGURE 4.1 SITUATION OF EURO PLAT FORM MEASUREMENTS IN THE NORTH SEA.........34
FIGURE 4.2 PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION AND CUMULATIVE DENSITY FUNCTION
FOR WIND SPEEDS IN OFFSHORE WIND FARM .......................................................34
FIGURE 4.3 POWER PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION FOR OFFSHORE WIND FARM .......35
FIGURE 4.4 OPTIMAL ROTATIONAL SPEED OF 5MW WIND TURBINE AS FUNCTION OF
WIND SPEED......................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 4.5 POWER NOT TAKEN FROM WIND DUE TO MULTI TURBINE SPEED CONTROL
..............................................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 4.6 EXPECTED VALUE OF POWER NOT TAKEN FROM THE WIND AT EACH WIND
SPEED IN THE VARIABLE SPEED ZONE DUE TO MULTI TURBINE SPEED
CONTROL...........................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 5.1 XLPE 3-CORE CABLE AND SINGLE PHASE CABLE AND REINFORCED
SUBMARINE XLPE 3-CORE CABLE ..............................................................................43
FIGURE 5.2 MAXIMUM TRANSMISSION CAPACITY PER 3-CORE CABLE AT 150 KV ............45
FIGURE 5.3 EQUIVALENT SECTION OF HVAC CABLE ..................................................................47
FIGURE 5.4 CAPABILITY CHART OF OFFSHORE VSC (RECTIFIER) ...........................................49
FIGURE 5.5 POWER FACTOR REQUIREMENT FOR WIND FARM IN UK.....................................51
FIGURE 5.6 CAPABILITY CHART OF ONSHORE VSC (INVERTER) .............................................52
FIGURE 5.7 HVAC SYSTEM OVERVIEW WITH COMPENSATION AT BOTH CABLE ENDS ....54
FIGURE 5.8 VOLTAGE DIP RIDE-THROUGH CHART FOR NGC, E.ON-NETZ AND SVENSKA
KRAFTNÄT ........................................................................................................................55
FIGURE 5.9 WIND FARM FREQUENCY AND ROTATIONAL SPEED RESPONSE ON FAULT...57
FIGURE 5.10 TOTAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM LOSSES FOR CROSS SOUND CABLE PROJECT
..............................................................................................................................................59
FIGURE 5.11 VSC HVDC LOSSES FOR 300 MW OFFSHORE WIND FARM ....................................59
FIGURE 5.12 REACTIVE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION IN THE CHOSEN 3-CORE HVAC CABLE .61
FIGURE 5.13 ESTIMATED CURRENT DISTRIBUTION IN HVAC CABLE 1 AND 2 .......................61
FIGURE 5.14 CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE AS FUNCTION OF CURRENT THROUGH CABLE
..............................................................................................................................................62
FIGURE 5.15 CABLE RESISTANCE AS A FUNCTION OF CURRENT THROUGH CABLE ............63
FIGURE 5.16 HVAC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM LOSSES....................................................................65
FIGURE 5.17 LOSS PERCENTAGE FOR VSC HVDC AND HVAC AS FUNCTION OF CABLE
x
 LENGTH..............................................................................................................................66
FIGURE 6.1 VSC HVDC M5 SUBSTATION: ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE STATION ...................71
FIGURE 6.2 RELATIVE EVOLUTION OF COPPER PRICE 2002 – 2008...........................................72
FIGURE 6.3 INVESTMENT COST COMPARISON: VSC HVDC VERSUS HVAC ...........................75
FIGURE 6.4 COST BREAKDOWN FOR 5MW DFIG OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE........................77
FIGURE 6.5 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST FOR 5 MW DFIG WIND TURBINE .......................79
FIGURE 7.1 TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS AND DCF: VSC HVDC VERSUS HVAC....................84
FIGURE 7.2 FINANCIAL COMPARISON: VSC HVDC WITH SCIG VERSUS HVAC WITH DFIG
..............................................................................................................................................84
FIGURE 7.3 FINANCIAL COMPARISON: VSC HVDC WITH SCIG VERSUS HVAC WITH
DDPMSG .............................................................................................................................85
FIGURE 7.4 FINANCIAL COMPARISON: VSC HVDC WITH SCIG VERSUS HVAC WITH
GPMSG ................................................................................................................................85
FIGURE 7.5 SENSITIVITY OF DCF RESULT TO VARIATION OF COST OF ENERGY: VSC
HVDC VERSUS HVAC......................................................................................................86
FIGURE 7.6 SENSITIVITY OF DCF RESULT TO VARIATION OF COST OF ENERGY: VSC
HVDC WITH SCIG VERSUS HVAC WITH DFIG...........................................................87
FIGURE 7.7 SENSITIVITY OF DCF RESULT TO VARIATION OF COST OF ENERGY: VSC
HVDC WITH SCIG VERSUS HVAC WITH DDPMSG ...................................................87
FIGURE 7.8 SENSITIVITY OF DCF RESULT TO VARIATION OF COST OF ENERGY: VSC
HVDC WITH SCIG VERSUS HVAC WITH GPMSG ......................................................88
FIGURE 7.9 SUM OF DRIVE TRAIN AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM LOSSES FOR COMPARED
TOPOLOGIES .....................................................................................................................88
FIGURE 7.10 SENSITIVITY OF DCF RESULT TO REDUCTION OF CONVERTER LOSSES..........89
FIGURE 7.11 SENSITIVITY OF DCF RESULT TO REDUCTION OF OFFSHORE CONVERTER
VOLUME.............................................................................................................................90
FIGURE 10.1 DETAIL OF POWER-SPEED CURVES FOR DIFFERENT WIND TURBINE
TOPOLOGIES ...................................................................................................................102
FIGURE 10.2 PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION FOR DIFFERENT WIND FARM LOCATIONS
............................................................................................................................................103
FIGURE 10.3 HORNS REV TRANSFORMER STATION ....................................................................104
FIGURE 10.4 INSTALLATION OF OFFSHORE TRANSFORMER STATION...................................104

xi
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1 COMPARISON HVAC, LCC HVDC AND VSC HVDC FOR CABLE TRANSMISSION
................................................................................................................................................6
TABLE 3-1 PLANNED AND CONSIDERED OFFSHORE WIND FARMS IN NORTHERN
EUROPE ..............................................................................................................................18
TABLE 3-2 CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIED WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGIES..........................32
TABLE 4-1 ENERGY OUTPUT COMPARISON BETWEEN FIXED- AND VARIABLE-SPEED
WIND TURBINES ..............................................................................................................36
TABLE 4-2 EFFICIENCIES OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF DRIVE TRAIN...........................39
TABLE 4-3 ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUT AND CAPACITY FACTOR FOR DIFFERENT
VARIABLE SPEED WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGIES.....................................................39
TABLE 5-1 HVDC LIGHT® MATRIX..................................................................................................42
TABLE 5-2 LOSS COMPARISON BETWEEN HVAC AND VSC HVDC AS TRANSMISSION
OPTION FOR A 300 MW OFFSHORE WIND FARM......................................................67
TABLE 6-1 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW VSC HVDC VERSUS HVAC...........................................76
TABLE 6-2 INVESTMENT COSTS FOR DIFFERENT WIND FARM TOPOLOGIES......................78
TABLE 6-3 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW VSC HVDC/SCIG VERSUS HVAC/DFIG ......................80
TABLE 6-4 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW VSC HVDC/SCIG VERSUS HVAC/DDPMSG...............80
TABLE 6-5 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW VSC HVDC/SCIG VERSUS HVAC/GPMSG..................81
TABLE 10-1 WIND SPEED DATA........................................................................................................103
TABLE 10-2 ENERGY OUTPUT FOR DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ....................................................103

xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Symbol Explanation Standard unit

A Scale parameter Weibull distribution [m/s]
C Shape parameter Weibull distribution [-]
Ccable Cable capacitance [F/m]
Cp Coefficient of performance [-]
dc Conductor diameter [m]
D Wind farm dimensional parameter [m]
fgrid Grid frequency [Hz]
fswitch Converter switching frequency [Hz]
I Current [A]
Iactive Active cable current [A]
IC Charging current [Ar]
Icable Cable current [A]
Ireactive Reactive cable current [Ar]
Iturb Turbulence intensity [%]
J Turbine blades inertia [kg.m2]
l% Transmission system loss percentage [%]
L Cable length [m]
Lcable Cable inductance [H/m]
nsynchronous Synchronous rotational speed [rpm]
p Number of pole pairs [-]
P Active power [W]
Pconverter Active power converter [W]
Pel Electric active power [W]
Pgen Active power generator [W]
PJoule Joule losses [W]
Ploss Losses [W]
Pmech Mechanical power [W]
Pnom Nominal power [W]
Protor Active power rotor [W]
Pshield+armor Shield and armor losses [W]
Pstator Active power stator [W]

xiii
Pwf Active power wind farm [W]
pdf(vwind)A,C Probability density function of vwind [-]
PF = cos Power factor [-]
Q Reactive power [Var]
Qcable Reactive power produced by cable [Var]
Qconverter Reactive power converter [Var]
Qdyn,STATCOM Dynamic reactive power range STATCOM [Var]
Qind Reactive power inductive compensator [Var]
Qrotor Reactive power rotor [Var]
Qstator Reactive power stator [Var]
Qwf Reactive power wind farm [Var]
Q+STATCOM STATCOM capacitive power rating [Var]
Q-STATCOM STATCOM inductive power rating [Var]
r Conductor radius [m]
R Resistance [Ohm]
R Radius of turbine blades [m]
RAC, ˚C AC resistance at temperature [Ohm]
Rcable Cable resistance [Ohm/m]
Rcable,eff Effective cable resistance [Ohm/m]
RDC, ˚C DC resistance at temperature [Ohm]
Rshield+armor Resistance increase due to shield and armor [Ohm/m]
s Distance between conductors [m]
t Time [s]
Û Machine voltage [V]
UAC AC grid voltage [V]
Ucable Cable line voltage [V]
Uconv Converter output voltage [V]
voff Wind speed offset [m/s]
vwind Wind speed [m/s]
x Position on cable [m]
xs Resistance effect factor [-]
X Reactance [Ohm]
X Geometric parameter shield losses [-]
XC Capacitive reactance [Ohm]

xiv
XL Inductive reactance [Ohm]
XPFC Power factor correcting reactance [Ohm]
yp Proximity effect factor [-]
ys Skin effect factor [-]
Temperature coefficient [-]
Pitch angle [deg]
Voltage angle [deg]
Conductor temperature [˚C]
Tip-speed ratio [-]
armor Armor loss increment [-]
i -corrected tip-speed ratio [-]
shield Shield loss increment [-]
3,14159… [-]
air Density of air [kg/m3]
φ Machine magnetic flux [Wb]
Rotational speed wind turbine [rad/s]
off Rotational speed offset [rad/s]
opt Optimal rotational speed wind turbine [rad/s]
rotor Rotational speed rotor [rad/s]
RSC Rotational speed applied by RSC [rad/s]
stator Rotational speed stator [rad/s]

Abbreviation Explanation
ABB Asea Brown Boveri
AC Alternating Current
AFE Active Front End
CCC Capacitor Commutated Converter
cdf Cumulative density function
CSC Current Source Converter
CSCP Cross Sound Cable Project
DC Direct Current
DCF Discounted Cash Flow
DDPMSG Direct-Drive Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator
DFIG Doubly-Fed Induction Generator

xv
EBITDA Earnings Before Interests, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
EPF Euro Plat Form
FSIG Fixed-Speed Induction Generator
GB Gearbox
GenSC Generator Side Converter
GPMSG Geared Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator
GridSC Grid Side Converter
HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current
HVDC High Voltage Direct Current
IGBT Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
InvC Investment Cost
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
LCC Line Commutated Converter
NGC National Grid Company
NPV Net Present Value
PCC Point of Common Coupling
pdf Probability density function
PF Power factor
PMSG Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator
PR Phase Reactor
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
RSC Rotor Side Converter
SCIG Squirrel Cage Induction Generator
SG Synchronous Generator
SSC Stator Side Converter
STATCOM Static Synchronous Compensator
SVC Synchronous Var Compensator
TF Transformer
TSO Transmission System Operator
VSC Voltage Source Converter
XLPE Cross-Linked Poly Ethylene

xvi
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose & scope

Voltage Source Converter (VSC) HVDC, also known as HVDC Light® (ABB) or HVDC Plus®
(Siemens), was introduced in 1997 with the commissioning of the 3 MW technology demonstrator at
Hellsjön, Sweden [1]. Until then, HVDC transmission systems were mainly installed as Line Commutated
Converter (LCC) HVDC, also known as HVDC Classic®. After ten years of operational experience and
development, it is clear that in a number of situations, VSC HVDC is a viable alternative for LCC HVDC
and even for HVAC connections. One of those contexts is the connection of an offshore wind farm with
the onshore transmission grid.

Wind energy has come to the stage of large-scale wind farms situated at sea several kilometers from
shore. The importance of the transmission system to shore increases with increasing cable length and
power rating of the wind farm. The transmission of the generated electric power to the onshore grid is
traditionally performed using HVAC technology. The main purpose of this thesis is to study the techno-
economic feasibility of VSC HVDC for the connection of an offshore wind farm with the main grid and
compare VSC HVDC with HVAC.

A first aim is to give an overview of the technical features of VSC HVDC. These features bring several
advantages when VSC HVDC is used as the transmission solution between an offshore wind farm and the
onshore grid. The economic value of these technical advantages is studied further in this thesis.

Several wind turbine topologies are still under consideration for offshore use. A second purpose is
therefore to give an overview of the different wind turbine topologies and highlight their pros and contras
for offshore use. Suggestions are made on how the topology of an offshore wind farm can be optimized
using VSC HVDC instead of HVAC. The main wind turbine topologies are therefore reviewed in
combination with VSC HVDC.

A 300 MW wind farm connected with a 50 km cable is used as a generic example to make the techno-
economic comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC based on numerical calculations. This proposed
wind farm (rating and distance from shore) is highly relevant in the current offshore wind industry
climate. Both a VSC HVDC and HVAC transmission system are dimensioned to the needs of this wind
farm. The technical comparison comprises the following aspects. The startup of the wind farms is
discussed. Possible grid code requirements, stated by the transmission grid operator, are taken into
account. The losses of both transmission systems are calculated and compared. The necessary calculations
are done in Matlab/Simulink.

The decision for the one or the other technology is based on economic considerations. An economic
comparison is therefore performed as well. Various investor relations, which might have an impact on the
decision, are considered. The systems are economically compared with a discounted cash flow
1
calculation, taking into account differences in investment costs and annual costs and benefits. The annual
costs and benefits considered are maintenance costs, transmission system losses and wind farm energy
output. Reliability and possible differences in insurance costs are not taken into account.

A tool is developed in MS Excel, in order to achieve quick insight in the impact of input parameter
variation on the DCF result. Only cost data from public domain are used. Several assumptions are made
in the economic comparison. The sensitivity of the result of the economic analysis to variation of some
important parameters is therefore investigated.

1.2 Structure

Chapter 1 Introduction (this section) describes the purpose and scope of this thesis and gives an
overview of the structure.

Chapter 2 Technical introduction to VSC HVDC discusses the relevant features of VSC HVDC for the
connection of an offshore wind farm.

Chapter 3 Offshore wind turbine topologies and their use with VSC HVDC discusses first the trends
in the offshore wind industry. The important wind turbine topologies are described. Suggestions are made
for topology optimization and simplification in case VSC HVDC is used as transmission system between
the wind farm and the onshore grid.

Chapter 4 Energy output of offshore wind turbines discusses the difference in energy yield for the
various types of offshore wind farms, either connected with HVAC or VSC HVDC.

Chapter 5 Design and operational aspects of VSC HVDC and HVAC discusses the dimensioning of
VSC HVDC and HVAC for a wind farm rated at 300 MW and a cable length of 50 km. Black start
capability is needed to start up the wind farm. The startup procedure is therefore discussed for both
transmission options. The compliance to possible grid code requirements and the losses of both
technologies are studied as well.

Chapter 6 Economic comparison of VSC HVDC and HVAC for the connection of offshore wind
farms compares both systems for a 300 MW wind farm situated 50 km from the Point of Common
Coupling on an economic basis. Only data from public domain are used. Different wind turbine
topologies are compared in combination with both transmission systems as well.

Chapter 7 Sensitivity analysis investigates the sensitivity of the results of chapter 6 to variation of some
important input parameters in the financial analysis.

Chapter 8 Conclusions summarizes the main conclusions of this thesis.

Additional information can be found in the Appendices.

2
2 TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION TO VSC HVDC

2.1 Introduction

The technical aspects of VSC HVDC are discussed in this chapter. VSC HVDC is first generally
compared with HVAC and LCC HVDC in 2.2 based on literature survey. The main operational aspects of
VSC HVDC are highlighted in 2.3. It will be clear by then that VSC HVDC has several technical
advantages over both HVAC and LCC HVDC. Those technical advantages are treated in 2.4. For the
purpose of this thesis, special attention is given to the important advantages for the connection of an
offshore wind farm with the onshore transmission grid.

2.2 Comparison of VSC HVDC with HVAC and LCC HVDC

The main motivation for the development of DC technology for power transmission was transmission
efficiency, as the power losses of a DC line are lower than those of an AC line with corresponding power
rating. However, historically High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) was primarily chosen as the
appropriate technology for electricity transmission [2],[3],[4]. Its main advantage is the straightforward
transformation of voltages, by means of transformers. The invention of the high-voltage mercury arc
valve provided the development of High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) systems, embedded in AC
grids. This made it possible to integrate HVDC links in AC networks for connections where HVDC
shows more favorable characteristics.

2.2.1 Comparison between HVAC and HVDC cable systems

For long distance underground or submarine transmission of power, HVAC is more difficult to
implement, leaving HVDC as an alternative. An AC cable can be modeled as a long cylindrical shunt
capacitor [5]. This capacitance gives rise to a reactive charging current which increases linearly with the
frequency, the length of the cable and the line voltage. At voltages used for long distance transmission of
electric power, the reactive power related to this charging current becomes considerable and reactive
compensation is necessary at one or both ends of the cable or at suitable intervals. The submarine
connection between an offshore wind farm and the onshore grid is in this case. The investment and
installation costs of compensation equipment add up to the costs of the cable system and make undersea
transmission with HVAC technology less feasible for longer transmission distances [6]. HVDC cables do
not exhibit a steady-state charging current as HVAC cables do.

Furthermore, HVAC cables are commonly installed in a three-phase configuration. The need for three
cables or one complex 3-core cable makes the investment costs per unit length higher for HVAC systems.
Transposition and cross bonding of the cables are necessary to keep the voltage system symmetrical and
to compensate the induced sheet voltages [7], which again adds up to the installation cost of submarine
HVAC systems. These extra costs are not necessary for HVDC links.

3
The substation or terminal costs are generally higher for HVDC because of the presence of one additional
AC/DC power electronic converter per substation. Furthermore, this converter causes additional losses
compared to HVAC systems. Pure cable losses are nevertheless higher for HVAC. The losses in HVAC
cables consist of 4 components [5]:

- RI2 losses in the conductor, increased by skin and proximity effect

- RI2 losses in the metallic shield (current is induced in the shield by the current in the conductors);
shield losses can be in the order of one-third of conductor losses

- RI2 losses in the steel wire armor (current is induced in the armor by the current in the conductors);
armor losses can be in the order of one-half of conductor losses

- Dielectric losses, which are relatively small

The losses in HVDC cables are lower for several reasons. Conductor losses are lower due to the absence
of skin and proximity effect. As there is no alternating current, no armor or shield currents are induced
and the related losses are thus absent as well. The current in HVDC cables is neither augmented due to a
charging current as it is the case for HVAC cables [8].

A general cost comparison between HVDC and HVAC cables is shown in Figure 2.1. There is a break-
even distance between HVAC and HVDC, generally considered between 40 and 80 km for cables [9].

Figure 2.1 Comparison of costs for AC and DC transmission cables [9],[10]

The reader has to be aware of the variations that are possible in Figure 2.1. The choice between VSC
HVDC and LCC HVDC for the DC option influences the result of the comparison significantly.
Furthermore, the power and voltage ratings of the compared transmission systems have an impact on the
outcome of Figure 2.1. The environmental conditions in the immediate surrounding of the cable
(underground or submarine) have an influence on the installation costs as well. For offshore wind farms,
one of the converters of the HVDC link will be placed on an offshore platform, which increases the costs
considerably. Figure 2.1 must be seen with these remarks in mind and specific economic analysis is
needed for each case.
4
2.2.2 Comparison between LCC HVDC and VSC HVDC
Most HVDC schemes in commercial operation today employ LCC HVDC, accumulating to an installed
capacity of more than 60 GW by the end of 2004 [3]. The first commercial LCC HVDC link was
commissioned in 1954 and purposed to connect the Swedish main grid with the island of Gotland [11].
Since its commercial introduction, LCC HVDC has known a great technological development,
particularly in its switching components and control systems. LCC HVDC uses thyristors in a Current
Source Converter (CSC) topology. Thyristors can only switch off when the current through them becomes
zero. The commutation process depends on the normal operation of the surrounding AC grid. The delayed
firing of the thyristors makes the current always lag the voltage. Reactive power is therefore absorbed by
a LCC HVDC link. A CSC is characterized by the unipolar direction of the current. The power direction
is changed by reversing the DC voltage, a time consuming operation. LCC HVDC is especially feasible
for long distance transmission of large amounts of electric power at very high voltages (e.g. +800 kV
claimed by ABB [12], test installation currently built at STRI, Ludvika, SE) or for long submarine
interconnections. For those systems, the economic benefits of low line losses outweigh the extra
investment costs of the AC/DC converter stations.

Voltage Source Converters are a known technology on an industrial basis for many years in a lower
voltage scale. In this context, it is known as Active Front End (AFE) for motor drives providing fast and
continuous control of the frequency and voltage magnitude. The use of the VSC topology for
transmission system purposes is however relatively new [1]. The VSC scheme uses Insulated Gate
Bipolar Transistors (IGBT) which can be switched on and off several times each power frequency cycle
by an external signal. This makes VSC advantageous over LCC because the VSC valves are independent
of the zero crossings of the current and the operation of the surrounding AC grid. Furthermore, the
reactive power, either capacitive or inductive, is controlled autonomously and reactive compensation is
not required. This gives the VSC HVDC an extra advantage over LCC HVDC in terms of power
controllability. Two other advantages of VSC HVDC are the absence of inverter commutation failures
and the limited injection of low-order harmonic currents [1],[13]. However, the numerous switching
operations with VSC HVDC lead to higher losses in the converter compared to LCC. This is a serious
drawback in bulk power transmission, since transmission losses represent high capital, making VSC
HVDC economically less interesting [13]. The losses in a converter station are approximately 1,6-1,8% of
the nominal power rating for each converter station for VSC HVDC and 0,8% for LCC HVDC [14].
Other drawbacks are the limited experience with this new technology, especially in higher power ratings
and the more expensive converter stations. A summarizing comparison between HVAC, LCC HVDC and
VSC HVDC for cable transmission is given in Table 2-1.

5
 HVAC LCC HVDC VSC HVDC
Maximum voltage level 150 kV installed e.g. + 150 kV installed
245 kV claimed NorNed: + 450 kV + 300 kV claimed
Substation volume Smallest size Biggest size Medium size
Cable installation Complex Simple Simple
(transpositioning,
cross-bonding, …)
Installation cost
Substation Low High Highest
Cables High Low Low
Compensation needed Yes Yes No
Losses
Substation [% of Pnom]0,3% 0,8% 1,6-1,8%
Cables High Low Low
Offshore experience Many small No 1 project
installations (oil platform)
Active power control No Yes Yes
Reactive power control No No Yes
Grid interconnections Synchronous Any Any
Power flow reversal Fast Slow Fast
Black start capability Yes No Yes, elaborate
Table 2-1 Comparison HVAC, LCC HVDC and VSC HVDC for cable transmission

2.3 Operational aspects of VSC HVDC

Figure 2.2 shows the general topology of a VSC substation. The main components are indicated. The
Converter Unit uses Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) to build the appropriate waveform out of the DC
voltage. The phase reactor (PR) is a voluminous component as it is an air coil. By controlling the voltage
angle over the PR, the desired active and reactive power exchange is achieved. The AC filter is used to
filter out the harmonics introduced by the switching of the converter. The interface transformer adapts the
voltage magnitude to the level of the Point of Common Coupling (PCC).

Figure 2.2 Components of VSC HVDC terminal [13]

6
2.3.1 Control of AC voltage amplitude and frequency
The fact that the power electronic switches in a VSC can be switched on as well as off, is of great
importance for the controllability of a VSC transmission link. By using PWM, the desired output voltage
amplitude is controlled by modulating the width of constant DC voltage pulses by setting the modulation
index [15],[16]. This makes the output voltage of the VSC HVDC link independent of the AC grid,
enabling unenergized network start and power delivery to weak AC grids. In Figure 2.3, a 2-level 3-phase
bridge is depicted [13]. Free-wheeling diodes are added in parallel with the switching devices to ensure
reverse current capability and to prevent the application of reverse voltages. The IGBTs are switched at a
fixed multiple (typically higher than 20) of the fundamental grid frequency. For a 2-level bridge, the AC
voltage waveform is built out of positive and negative DC voltages as shown in Figure 2.4 (red). The DC
capacitance is assumed to be infinite for the purpose of this figure (no DC voltage ripple). The voltage
measured behind the phase reactor and after filtering is depicted in blue.

Figure 2.3 Scheme of 2-level 3-phase Voltage Source Converter bridge

Figure 2.4 2-level converter single phase output voltage (fswitch = 21 times fundamental)

In order to lower the harmonic distortion of the output voltages, higher level converter bridges are used. A
3-level neutral point clamped bridge is commonly used for practical installations of VSC HVDC e.g.
Murray Link (Australia) [17] and Cross Sound Cable (USA) [18]. The scheme of a 3-level VSC bridge is
shown in Figure 2.5. A typical output voltage waveform of a 3-level Voltage Source Converter can be

7
seen in Figure 2.6 (red). The voltage waveform after the phase reactor and after filtering is shown in blue.

Figure 2.5 Scheme of 3-level 3-phase Voltage Source Converter bridge

Figure 2.6 3-level converter single phase output voltage (fswitch = 21 times fundamental)

Higher level converter topologies (e.g. 5-level, 7-level…) are able to lower the harmonic distortion
further and can lower the number of switching operations per IGBT. These higher level converter
topologies promise lower switching losses. However it becomes clear that the system complexity
increases rapidly with the number of voltage levels. This involves higher investment costs, which is why
practical schemes are limited to three levels upto now. The HVDC Plus® system by Siemens is based on
a multi-level approach, but no practical installations are operational yet [19]. Lower converter losses are
nevertheless expected.

The frequency of the AC voltage wave is controllable in two ways:

− The frequency of the oscillator that controls the valve firing can be controlled and varied.
− When the VSC feeds into an AC system with active generators, the converter station can participate in
the primary frequency control by regulating the active power it takes from or delivers to the AC
system.

2.3.2 Control of active and reactive power

Power flow control is independently possible at each converter [20]. In order for the DC link voltage to

8
remain constant, the following equation must hold
Prect = Pinv + Ploss (2-1)

One of the converters is responsible for keeping the DC voltage on the link at its nominal level. This is
done by controlling the net power going into the DC capacitance of the link. The other converter sets the
amount of active power through the link.

The phase reactors play an important role in the control of the active and reactive power each converter
station supplies to the grid. All VSC transmission systems possess a series inductance separating the
power electronic converter from the AC grid. A simplified system is shown in Figure 2.7. The active
power and reactive power injected in the AC grid are given by

U AC U conv sin δ
P= (2-2)
X
U conv (U conv − U AC cos δ )
Q= (2-3)
X

X represents the series reactance of the phase reactor and the transformer in the converter station.
represents the phase angle between the voltage waveform at the converter and the voltage in the AC grid.
A voltage measurement is performed in the AC grid. Furthermore, a phase locked loop measures the
frequency and phase angle in the grid in order to control .

Active power control is performed by controlling the phase angle of the fundamental frequency
component of the converter voltage. The lagging or leading of the converter voltage compared to the AC
grid voltage sets the amount of active power transfer to or from the grid.

Figure 2.7 Power control of VSC with phase reactor

The reactive power transfer is controlled by the converter voltage amplitude. If the converter output
voltage is higher than the AC grid voltage, the converter acts as an overexcited synchronous generator
and pushes reactive power to the grid. When the converter output voltage is lower than the AC grid
voltage, the converter acts as an under-excited synchronous machine and consumes reactive power from
the grid. The possibility to consume as well as produce reactive power in a controlled manner is a unique
feature of VSC HVDC [22],[13]. The control of active and reactive power is furthermore almost
instantaneous.

The capability of VSC HVDC to absorb and inject active and reactive power is generally represented in a
P,Q-capability chart (Figure 2.8). The desired active power through the link is normally the first concern.
For example for an offshore wind farm, it is the produced amount offshore that needs to be evacuated.

9
Active power through a link can be specified by the electricity market or by loss minimization strategies
when incorporated in a meshed grid as well. The amount of available reactive power will depend on the
amount of active power being already transmitted, depending on the MVA rating of the converters.
Therefore, the P,Q-capability characteristic is typically a circle with a radius equal to the maximum MVA
rating of the converters. When the voltage in the AC grid varies, the converters are restricted by the
current rating of the power electronic switches and the capability circle scales accordingly. The reactive
power capability of the converter is more limited on the capacitive side of the P,Q-capability chart. The
voltage is raised above the AC grid voltage (2-2) to inject reactive power. The converter voltage is
however restricted to the maximum value of the power electronics and this makes the P,Q-capability chart
more limited on this side for higher AC voltages.

Figure 2.8 P,Q-capability chart of VSC HVDC link

A LCC HVDC link solely consumes reactive power. The uncompensated reactive power demand at the
terminals of a LCC HVDC converter is about 50-60% of the active power flow. Some LCC schemes use
another topology, e.g. Capacitor Commutated Converter (CCC) HVDC with a capacitor to provide
reactive power compensation. This produces a characteristic in the P-Q diagram that is more reactive
power neutral. The dynamic control of reactive power is not possible with LCC HVDC.

2.4 Technical Advantages

It is clear that VSC HVDC has, because of its high controllability, some specific technical advantages
over HVAC and LCC HVDC. These technical advantages of VSC transmission can offer, next to power
transfer, other system benefits. This can bring an economic value to VSC HVDC justifying the higher
investment costs and converter losses. Depending on their importance for the connection of an offshore
wind farm, they are discussed in more detail.

2.4.1 Power flow control

The operator can control the amount of active power through a VSC HVDC link. This makes it possible
10
to set the power flow as desired by the electricity market. Loop flows, because of different impedances on
different parallel connections can be opposed. Typical examples of loop flows in Central Europe are the
flows present on windy days in the north of Germany [23]. The major load centra in Germany are situated
in the south of the country, whereas the production is mainly in the north on windy days. Because of the
limited connections between the north and south on German territory, the flows search other, low
impedance routes through neighbouring countries. These currents tend to overload the connections in The
Netherlands, Belgium and France on the one side and in Poland and Czech Republic on the other side.

Another advantage of power flow control is the possibility to reduce overall network losses in a meshed
grid with VSC HVDC. The results of optimal power flow algorithms can be practically implemented due
to this feature.

This feature might seem less relevant for an offshore wind farm, as all the produced electricity needs to be
evacuated to the shore. The control of active power can nevertheless be used to improve the frequency
response of the wind farm as will be discussed later in Chapter 5.

2.4.2 Grid voltage support and power system stability

The voltage level in the grid is related to the reactive power. A VSC station can absorb or supply reactive
power almost independent of the active power. By choosing the appropriate working point in the P,Q-
capability chart, the transmission system operator can control the voltage level in the grid close to the
converter station. This improves the voltage stability in the grid [24]. Furthermore, the possibility to
operate the transmission system at a slightly higher voltage reduces the losses in the surrounding grid.
VSC HVDC can use this advantage especially when connected to a weak AC system [25]. This is often
the case for the connection of an offshore wind farm. Grids in the neighbourhood of coasts often need
reinforcements (e.g. extra transmission capacity, reactive power generators, …) when large generation
blocks such as offshore wind farms are connected (e.g. Germany, Belgium, …). The use of VSC HVDC
as a transmission solution between the wind farm and the onshore grid reduces the need for these
reinforcements.

2.4.3 Black start capability

The term black start capability originates from the operation of the electricity transmission grid. Under
normal operating condition, the transmission system is characterized by a sinusoidal voltage waveform
with a certain amplitude and frequency. It is fair to state that at any considered point in the grid, the
voltage amplitude is at a relatively fixed value, close to the rated voltage. The frequency is the same
throughout the whole grid and is controlled very strictly at a fixed value. When the transmission grid
experiences a blackout, the entire system de-energizes and all generation units come to a stop. Afterwards
it has to be re-energized or black started. In this way, a system exhibits black start capability when it can
bring a power system from shutdown condition to the initial stages of power system restoration, enabling
the return to normal condition [26]. For this purpose, the black start solution must be able to deliver
power to a load network with an independently created sinusoidal voltage waveform, with given voltage

11
amplitude and frequency. The term black start capability is nowadays used in two contexts.

In the traditional meaning, the term is used for generating units who can start a grid after blackout, based
on another power source than the electricity grid itself. Usually, black start generating units have backup
power (e.g. diesel-driven synchronous generators) or an independent energy supply (hydro or pumped
storage plants). They are used in case of total electricity grid blackout to create the voltage waveform. By
creating a rotating field, it becomes possible to start up or connect other generators [27]. The transmission
grid is then re-energized progressively, first of all supplying to smaller “power islands”, later on
connecting these islands to larger subsystems and finally accomplishing the restoration of the entire
system [28]. It is common to use synchronous generators as electrical machines in black start generating
units. Induction generators have reactive power requirements which make them unsuited for black start
purposes [28]. The black start generators must be able to cope with steep load changes, both active and
reactive. Active load blocks are added progressively to the generators in order to supply more and more
demand. Furthermore, during transmission system recovery, long lines between generating units are
energized. These lines represent important reactive power loads. The supply of this demanded active and
reactive power is possible with synchronous generators through the control of the applied torque by the
primary energy source and the excitation of the synchronous machine. The control of active and reactive
power output is also considered as part of the black start capability.

A new concept is the black start capability of transmission systems. Black start capability of transmission
links can be defined as the possibility to deliver the appropriate voltage waveform, independently of any
other device, at one end of the link, based on normal grid operation at the other end of the link. The power
source for the black start generation is thus the electricity grid itself and the transmission line can only use
its black start capability if the sending end does not experience blackout. Furthermore, the active and
reactive power through the link is controlled by the link operator.

Voltage Source Converter (VSC) HVDC is in this case. When the HVDC link is charged, the DC voltage
is thus present, the AC voltage waveform at the receiving end can be controlled by switching the IGBTs
in the converter station [15],[16]. The DC link disconnects the dead grid from the operating grid and can
start up the dead grid progressively after blackout [29]. By controlling the load angle, the active and
reactive power is set and the link is put in any point on the P,Q-chart, almost instantaneously. These
features are very useful in the power delivery to remote locations, the start-up of a network after blackout
or the startup of an offshore wind farm. An example of a VSC HVDC, with black start capability enabled,
is the Estonian Converter of the Estlink (Finland – Estonia). An auxiliary power winding is added to the
transformer for self-supply during “house-load” operation. In the unlikely event of a black-out in the
Estonian network, the Estlink transmits power from the asynchronous Finnish grid (part of Nordel) to the
Estonian grid and restores grid operation there [30],[31]. Likewise, the Cross Sound Cable Project
(CSCP) is a VSC HVDC link between New England and New York. It consists of a 40 km pair of cables
rated at 330 MW [18]. During the restoration following the August 14, 2003 blackout, this cable was
instrumental in restoring electric power to customers on Long Island. The CSC transported 330 MW to
12
Long Island, enough power to restore electric service to over 300,000 homes. The AC system voltage
stability in Connecticut and on Long Island was highly enhanced during and subsequent to the network
restoration by CSCPs AC voltage control feature. The fact that VSC HVDC does not need an active grid
in order to become connected allows it to be available almost instantly after blackout [24]. Since the
consequences for society differ significantly between a blackout of 15 min and a blackout of 6 hours, the
speed and robustness of VSC HVDC can be very valuable.

The definition of black start capability is different for transmission systems than for electricity generating
units. It makes sense to define black start capability only for transmission systems that form a connection
between two separated networks. Examples of separated networks are asynchronous grids or grids with
only one connection between them (e.g. wind farm grid – onshore grid, small island – onshore grid, …).
The transmission line possesses black start capability if it can feed from an operational network into a
‘load only’ network.

Line Commutated Converter (LCC) HVDC does not have black start capability because the switching of
the thyristors depends on the presence of the AC grid voltage. Normal AC grid operation on both sides of
the link is an absolute requirement for LCC HVDC to become operational. HVAC transmission cables
and lines can connect a ‘load only’ network to a generating network and make it part of the total network.
The control of active and reactive power is nevertheless not possible with HVAC, without the use of
auxiliary devices. The voltage amplitude can neither be controlled without additional equipment and the
frequency is fixed to the grid frequency. HVAC inherently has black start capability, but in a more limited
way than VSC HVDC as it is not controllable.

Black start capability is an absolute requirement for an offshore wind farm connection. A wind farm
behaves as a ‘load only’ network during startup. A voltage waveform with appropriate amplitude and
frequency has to be applied to bring the generators online. Depending on the chosen type of generators
and wind turbine topologies in the wind farm, the wind farm has typical active and reactive power
requirements. This will be discussed further in this thesis. The lack of black start capability is a serious
drawback for LCC HVDC and makes it unsuited for the link between an offshore wind farm and the
onshore grid. It will be shown that only VSC HVDC has full black start capability for a wind farm,
whereas HVAC always needs additional equipment.

2.4.4 Connection of asynchronous grids

Opposed to HVAC, HVDC can connect two asynchronous grids or even grids with different frequencies.
With VSC HVDC, it is even possible to independently control the frequency in the grid. This can be
useful in the case of an offshore wind farm, an isolated load or two independent systems where mutual
frequency support is possible. VSC HVDC does not restrict the frequency to the main grid frequency and
can even handle variable frequency operation [25]. By varying the frequency in a wind farm, it is possible
to control the rotational speed of the wind turbines. This approach is discussed further in Chapter 3. An
example of a VSC HVDC connection with variable frequency supply to a load is the connection to the

13
Norwegian rig Troll A [25],[32],[33]. The VSC HVDC system is used to transport power from the
Norwegian grid to the load side 70 km from the coastline. The load is an electric motor. The rotational
speed of this motor is controlled by the VSC HVDC link through variation of the load side frequency.

2.4.5 Voltage dip ride-through and power quality

A VSC HVDC link decouples two grids in such a way that faults in one grid do not propagate to the other
grid. VSC HVDC therefore delivers the required voltage dip ride-through capability for an offshore wind
farm. The rapid AC voltage control is also used to improve the power quality, including the reduction of
flicker and other transient disturbances [20]. Faults on the DC side of the link can not be handled by the
converter stations. AC grid breakers have to open and clear this kind of faults. This is one of the reasons
why VSC HVDC uses preferably cables instead of overhead lines, because of the reduced exposure to
lightning.

2.4.6 Cable choice

VSC HVDC uses simple solid extruded insulation cables. The change of power direction is achieved
through reversal of the current direction and not by polarity switching of the voltage as with LCC HVDC.
Solid extruded insulation cables cannot withstand a polarity reversal and fluid-filled or mass impregnated
cables must therefore be used with LCC HVDC. They are more complicated to handle, especially in a
submarine environment [20]. Solid extruded insulation cables avoid the leak of oil present for fluid-filled
cables [21].

Furthermore, HVDC cables are experienced to have a lower environmental impact than HVAC cables.
The need for three phases increases the number of cables or makes the cables more voluminous. More
trenches and more boat runs are needed to install HVAC leading to a greater seabed disturbance. The
isolation of DC cables can be thinner than for HVAC cables as well. With HVAC the peak voltage is a

factor 2 higher than U cable , whereas this factor is not present for HVDC links. More power per mm2
conductor is transferred with HVDC cables than with HVAC cables.

2.5 Conclusion

The technical aspects of VSC HVDC were discussed in this chapter. It became clear that VSC HVDC has
interesting qualities to form the connection between an offshore wind farm and the onshore transmission
grid. The most important features are the control of active and reactive power, the possibility to connect
two asynchronous grids with even differing and varying frequencies and the black start capability. The
lack of black start capability makes LCC HVDC unsuited for the connection of offshore wind farms.
HVAC has several disadvantages compared to VSC HVDC but is nevertheless often used in this context.
The higher investment costs for short cable lengths, and the losses in the converter stations are a
drawback for VSC HVDC compared to HVAC.

14
3 OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE TOPOLOGIES AND THEIR USE
WITH VSC HVDC

3.1 Introduction

More and more countries, especially in Europe, investigate the installation of offshore wind farms. The
major trends in the offshore wind industry are discussed in this chapter. It is shown that the wind farms
for the future are expected in a power range of several hundred MW and situated tens of kilometers from
the coast (3.2). A discussion on wind turbine topologies is given further in this chapter (3.3). The
investigated topologies are based on standard onshore topologies for wind turbines. The specific problems
and constraints for offshore installation are highlighted. The different wind turbine topologies are
reviewed in combination with a VSC HVDC link (3.4). It is shown that the use of VSC HVDC allows for
optimization or simplification of the offshore wind farm. The discussion held in this chapter is qualitative.
Interesting topologies for offshore use are taken further in this thesis and discussed in a later chapter in a
more quantitative way.

3.2 Offshore wind trends

Mankind faces an increasing electricity demand for the future. Fossil fuels are running out and their use
for electricity generation is harming the environment and affecting the climate [34]. This makes it
possible for alternative technologies to enter the electricity production market. Governments all over the
world stimulate electricity production out of renewable resources. A promising option, if not proven, in
this context is electricity out of wind energy. The installed wind capacity is growing at a very high annual
growth rate worldwide. According to the World Wind Energy Association, 93,8 GW of wind power was
installed at the end of 2007 [35] and more than 160 GW is expected at the end of 2010 [36]. As an
extension of the proven wind farm technology onshore, wind turbines are increasingly installed offshore.
Several reasons exist for moving wind turbines away from the land.

A first advantage at sea is that wind conditions are better than onshore. First of all, the average wind
speed is significantly higher. The power in the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed and the
increase in annual energy output by moving wind turbines offshore is considerable. The higher average
wind speed thus has a positive effect on the capacity factor of the wind farm. As an example, the Danish
Nysted offshore project showed a capacity factor of 47% in 2005 (an average wind-speed year for
Denmark) [37]. The capacity factor for offshore wind farms is generally expected to be around 40%,
whereas for coastal regions 32% and for inland regions 25% can be expected [38]. Secondly, the wind
speeds are less turbulent due to the smooth surface of the surrounding water. The wind speeds neither
increase as much with the height above sea level as they do above land. This makes it possible to use
lower towers (for the part above the sea level) for wind turbines located offshore [39].

Another reason for installing wind farms on the sea is that wind turbines need space. The number of

15
lasting suitable wind sites on land is decreasing, especially in densely populated areas such as Western
Europe [40]. Furthermore, the social acceptance for onshore wind energy reaches its limits in some
countries.

The possibility to build large scale wind farms offshore is important as well. Onshore wind projects are
often limited in power rating and more considered as distributed generation. Aggregation of wind turbines
in a large wind farm brings important scale advantages to the wind farm owner as well as to onshore grid
operators. The larger scale of the wind farm helps the owner to produce electricity at more competitive
cost compared to other generating units [41]. A possible advantage for grid operators is the connection of
larger wind farms to a higher voltage at the Point of Common Coupling (PCC). This relieves the
distribution grids on lower voltages, which are now sometimes highly loaded on windy days. The
centralized connection of wind energy makes it easier to account for it and to take grid reinforcing
measures that might be needed.

Another reason is that Europe strives to produce 20% of its electricity demand out of renewable resources
in 2020 and counts on offshore wind energy to achieve this goal [42]. Offshore wind farms are therefore
supported by the European governments through subsidies, grants and certificates [43]. The governmental
financial support is often higher for offshore wind projects than for onshore projects [44].

Historically, the first offshore wind farms are built near shore. The generated electricity is transmitted to
the shore on the voltage level of the offshore grid. This voltage level is typically not higher than 36 kV.
From a transmission grid side of view, there is no significant difference with other distributed generation
by wind turbines onshore. Those wind farms are mostly small scale (<50MW). Leading countries in the
development of small scale offshore wind production units are Denmark, UK (Round 1 Projects), The
Netherlands and Sweden [37]. The evolution of offshore wind farm development is shown in Figure 3.1.
At the end of 2007 a total installed capacity of 1,1 GW was realized offshore. The expected additional
offshore capacity that will be commissioned in 2008 is higher than any year before.

Figure 3.1 Offshore wind farm development in Europe [37]

16
Today, more and more wind farms are planned on a larger scale and further from shore. Power ratings of
several 100 MW and transmission distances to shore of tens of km are no longer exceptions. Several
reasons exist to push wind farms to higher power ratings and further from shore.

The further from shore, the better the wind conditions are. The wind speed is considered to be higher on
average and the wind is less turbulent. This leads to an increased energy output of the wind turbines
compared to nearshore wind farms.

Another reason is based on juridical considerations in the procedure to get the necessary building permits.
It is socially not always acceptable to put offshore wind farms too close to shore in some countries and
governmental or juridical decisions are taken to get them out of sight [45]. Furthermore, coastal waters
are often frequented by ships to access numerous ports on the coasts of Europe. Other waters are used for
fishing or military purposes [46]. Those reasons make the number of suitable near shore sites limited.

For wind farms situated at several tens of km from shore, it is no longer attractive to use the collection
grid voltage of the wind farm to transport the electricity to shore. The losses along the cable depend on
the current through the cable. It is advantageous to set up an explicit transmission system between the
wind farm and the onshore grid, rated at a higher voltage in order to reduce the current and the related
losses. A substation is installed on an offshore platform to collect the power from the individual turbines
and transform the voltage to higher, more suitable values.

The cost of the installed platform and substation offshore is divided over the different turbines. The more
turbines connected to the substation, the smaller the impact of this transmission system cost is in the total
cost of the electricity produced offshore. For this reason, wind farms built at larger distances from shore
contain more individual turbines and have thus a higher power rating.

It is nevertheless not feasible to put an offshore wind farm too far from shore, and the majority of the
planned and built wind farms are therefore situated within 60 km from shore. Examples are the planned
Belgian wind farms on the Thornton (30 km from shore, commissioning 2008) and Bligh Bank (45 km
from shore, commissioning 2010) and the Dutch Q7 project (23 km from shore, commissioning 2007).
Several reasons exist for the preference of not going too far from shore [37].

First of all the wind farm owner wants to reduce the transmission distance for the generated electricity.
Whatever cable technology is chosen, the cable investment and installation costs, as well as the losses,
will increase with the cable length and tend to nullify the possible gain in capacity factor. Furthermore,
constructional reasons such as larger depth of the sea and longer transportation distance of building
material increase the installation costs when moving the wind farms further from shore. The work
conditions are harsher during installation and maintenance of the turbines [47].

An exception to this trend is the German planned Borkum 2 wind farm. This wind farm will have a rated
capacity of 400 MW and will be situated over 200 km from the point of common coupling (PCC) in the
German grid (node at Diele) and 128 km from shore (commissioning 2009). It is part of the first phase of

17
a larger project, which is scheduled to have a capacity of 1500 MW when completed. The large wind
project fits in the German strategy to achieve the Kyoto targets [48],[49]. The total capacity will be built
on several sandbanks in the immediate surroundings of Borkum 2. The transmission system operator pays
for the connection between wind farms and the onshore grid in Germany. This makes the distance from
shore less important for private wind farm developers.

After this discussion, it is concluded that typical offshore wind farms are expected to be built between 30
and 60 km from shore. As mentioned in 2.2.1, this is about the expected break-even distance between
HVAC and HVDC for submarine cable connections. The power rating is expected in a 200-500 MW
range per wind farm. Table 3-1 shows some planned wind farms in Northern Europe with their respective
power ratings. Approximately 20-25 GW of offshore wind power is expected in the German North and
Baltic Sea by 2030 [47]. Some projects are planned farshore (>100 km). The projects in the UK are the
closest to shore (10-20 km) and therefore in a smaller power rating.

Country/Wind farm Rating [MW] Country/Wind farm Rating [MW]

Belgium Ireland
Thornton 300 Arklow 520
Bank zonder naam 180-250 Kish Bank 250
Bligh 330
Denmark Netherlands
Horns Rev 2 200 Egmont aan zee 108
Omø Stålgrund/Nysted 2 200 Ijmuiden 100
Western Scheldt mouth 100
Germany Sweden
Borkum Riffgat 130 Kriegers Flak 600
Borkum Riffgrund 600-1000 Lillgrund 96-144
Borkum 3 60 Utgrunden 2 90
Borkum 4 400 United Kingdom
Borkum Riffgrund West up to 1800 Barrow 90
Butendiek 240 Burbo 90
Dan-Tysk 1500 Cromer 90
Helgoland 1-3 800-1000 Gunfleet 90
Möwensteert 210 Kentish flats 90
Nordergründe 150-600 London Array 4x275
Nordsee AWS 500-1000 Shell falt 270
Pommersche Bucht 200 Solway Firth 180
Sandbank 24 1000 Southport 90
Schleswig-Holsteinische 400 Svarweather sands 90
Nordsee 500-1000 Tesside 90
Table 3-1 Planned and considered offshore wind farms in Northern Europe [50]

It has to be noted that the length of the transmission cable is the distance from the offshore substation to
the Point of Common Coupling (PCC) in the onshore grid and not just the distance to shore. A wind farm
of several 100 MW has to be connected to the grid on a suitable voltage level. A grid of this level is not
always present at the coast (e.g. Germany, Belgium…) and the additional onshore distance to a suitable
grid node adds up to the final length of the transmission cable. Once onshore, it might be possible to use
overhead lines which are much cheaper, but in general it is virtually impossible to construct these lines in

18
Europe because of public opposition.

3.3 Wind turbine topologies

Basically, three major wind turbine topologies are distinguished. The first generation wind turbines were
asynchronous machines directly connected to the grid. They are discussed in more detail in paragraph
3.3.1. In the search for variable-speed operation of wind turbines, two other topologies were introduced.
The first one, still based on an asynchronous generator, uses a converter to feed the rotor. The second one,
based on a synchronous generator, uses a full power converter. They are discussed in more detail in 3.3.2.

The discussed topologies originate from on land wind turbines. For offshore wind turbines some specific
constraints hold that are less important for land based wind turbines. First of all, the installation of wind
turbines offshore is more complicated than onshore. A reduction in weight and volume of the different
components or in the number of components per wind turbine has a higher impact on the total installation
cost of the wind farm offshore than onshore. Another important topic is the amount of maintenance
needed for the turbine components. Offshore maintenance is difficult and more costly than onshore.
Furthermore, the access to the wind farm is limited to some months of the year due to the weather
conditions. This diminishes the overall capacity factor of the offshore wind farm. As one of the reasons
for moving wind turbines offshore was the expected higher capacity factor, a minimum of maintenance
and a high reliability are certainly advantages for an offshore wind turbine topology.

3.3.1 Fixed-speed wind turbines

The first wind turbines were equipped with an asynchronous generator operated at fixed rotational speed.
The topology is known under the name Fixed-Speed Induction Generator (FSIG) topology and was very
popular in the early years of wind turbine development. It is still used by a high portion of the installed
wind capacity. As an example, the majority of existing land-based wind turbines still used this topology
in 2003 in the United Kingdom [51]. The topology is also called the ‘Danish model’ because of its high
penetration in the Danish grid. The outlook of the FSIG topology is shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Fixed-Speed Induction Generator wind turbine topology

The generator is a brushless squirrel-cage induction generator. A typical output voltage for this kind of
generators is 690V which explains the presence of a transformer for the connection to the grid [51].

19
Generators of this type are available up to 5 MW in power. The output voltages are higher for higher
power ratings (up to 11 kV) [52]. Some of the main advantages are the robustness, the mechanical
simplicity and the low cost of this configuration. This is mainly due to the limited amount of components
to form an operational wind turbine. In the following paragraphs the major disadvantages are discussed.

Asynchronous generators are normally produced with a low number of pole pairs (typically p = 2 or 3),
which involves a higher synchronous speed (1500 or 1000 rpm) than the typical optimal rotational speed
of the turbine blades (~10 rpm). A gearbox is therefore required in wind turbines with asynchronous
generators. Gearboxes are expensive and heavy components. Generally, gearboxes represent about 15-
20% of the total turbine cost for large scale wind turbines ( 2MW) [53],[54]. For offshore wind turbines,
this gearbox imposes an extra drawback because of the high maintenance costs (e.g. need for lubrication).
Generators with a higher number of pole pairs (p>10) are unacceptable because of their low power factor
(PF = 0,6 without compensation) [35].

Due to the single direct connection to the grid, the generator is obliged to operate at fixed speed. It is
advantageous for the energy output of a wind turbine to operate at variable rotational speed as will be
discussed in the following paragraph. The FSIG speed varies by only a few percent (variations in slip
speed) caused by sudden changes in wind speed. The steep torque-speed characteristic around the
synchronous speed of induction machines makes these variations minimal. Fluctuations of the mechanical
power due to wind gusts are therefore quickly transferred to the grid [55]. There is no possibility to use
the inertia of the turbine blades to absorb wind speed fluctuations. This puts higher mechanical stresses on
the blades than in a variable-speed configuration. The audible noise is higher than for variable-speed wind
turbines as well. This is nevertheless of minor concern for offshore wind farms.

Another drawback is the constant consumption of reactive power by induction machines. The generator
can only be operational when it is connected to a grid that delivers this reactive power demand. The
machine consists mainly of copper windings and massive iron. Therefore, seen from the grid, an
induction generator behaves as an inductance with a lagging power factor. A typical value for the power
factor is 0,89 during nominal operation [55]. The induced magnetic field rotates at synchronous speed,
determined by the number of poles and the frequency of the grid. To act as a generator the rotor has to be
driven at a speed higher than this synchronous speed. Because of the relative motion between stator and
rotor (slip), a current is induced in the rotor bars. The electromagnetic interaction of the rotor and stator
field results in a torque on the rotor.

The constant demand for reactive power can cause detrimental effects on the surrounding grid voltage
level, which would make the induction generators absorb even more reactive power [51]. This can lead to
voltage instability in grids with high wind penetration. Transmission grid operators released more
stringent grid codes for the connection of wind turbines because of this reason, e.g. [56],[57]. It is now
necessary to install additional power factor correcting capacitors at each wind turbine or a common
capacitor bank for larger wind farms. These capacitors are typically rated at 30% of the wind farm

20
capacity [51].

A very high inrush current is drawn from the grid when the generators are started. This transient current,
which can be up to 8 times the rated current, occurs because of the magnetization of the machine. The
effect is similar to the switching of an RL-circuit. The large inrush currents of a wind farm can produce
severe voltage sags in the grid. A soft-start device is often installed to reduce the starting current [35].

Because of the mentioned disadvantages, the FSIG topology is normally not installed in power ratings
higher than 2 MW [58] and it is more and more abandoned for onshore use. The main disadvantages hold
as well for a large scale offshore wind farm connected to the onshore grid with HVAC. The wind farm
will operate at a constant frequency of 50 Hz in Europe and the rotational speed of the turbines will
therefore not be variable. The variation in total reactive power demand of the wind farm as a function of
the wind speed makes the connection with HVAC complicated and infeasible as well. The voltage
stability of the total system is poor for large projects situated several kilometers from shore. The newest
grid code requirements on voltage dip ride-through capability and power factor control can not be
fulfilled without expensive additional equipment such as SVC or STATCOM. This topology is therefore
no longer under consideration for large offshore wind farms connected to the onshore grid with HVAC.

3.3.2 Variable-speed wind turbines

Because variable-speed wind turbines have the potential for increased energy capture, wind turbine
manufacturers have begun to explore this possibility in the nineties [59]. The performance of a wind
turbine is expressed by a coefficient of performance C p . The power captured by a wind turbine at a

certain wind speed is given by

1
P mech = ⋅ ρ air ⋅ C p (λ , β ) ⋅ π ⋅ R 2 ⋅ v wind
3
(3-1)
2

The coefficient of performance depends on the tip-speed ratio and the pitch angle . The tip-speed ratio
is defined by

R ⋅ω
λ= (3-2)
v wind

with ω the rotational speed of the blades and R the radius of the rotor.

The coefficient of performance is approximated for a three-blade turbine by [113]

−12 , 5
116
C p (λ , β ) = 0,22 − 0,4 β − 5 e λi
(3-3)
λi

with

1 1 0,035
= − 3 (3-4)
λi λ + 0,08β β + 1

21
C p as a function of , with as a parameter is shown in Figure 3.3. The theoretical maximum for the

coefficient of performance is equal to the Betz limit (= 0,593). The maximum achievable coefficient of
performance for each is shown in red. By varying the rotational speed (variable speed operation), is
controlled in order to optimize C p and reach a higher output power at low wind speeds. The coefficient

of performance can as such be held longer at an optimum in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Coefficient of performance as function of with as a parameter

A Matlab/Simulink model of a 5 MW wind turbine is developed for this thesis. It is not the main purpose
of this thesis to develop a wind turbine model, but the results are used throughout this thesis. Information
on this model is given in Appendix A. The possible gain in energy capture can be seen in Figure 3.4. The
red line shows the power output of a fixed-speed wind turbine as a function of wind velocity. The blue
line depicts the same for a wind turbine operated at variable rotational speed. The nominal power of both
wind turbines was chosen at 5 MW. The wind turbines assumed in this thesis stop operation because of
safety reasons at 30 m/s (cut-out wind speed).

Variable-speed wind turbines always need a power electronic converter (Voltage Source Converter) to
facilitate the variable-speed operation of the generator. This converter poses an additional cost on the
wind turbine. The converter introduces extra losses in the system and the extra energy captured from the
wind is partially lost. The choice for a converter is made upon economical considerations.

A disadvantage of the presence of a converter is that, depending on the relative rating of the converter
compared to the total wind turbine rating, the contribution of the turbine to the short-circuit capacity of
the grid is reduced. Large disturbances cause large fault currents both at the stator and the rotor. Voltage
Source Converters are not very tolerant to high currents and they will block during severe disturbances
and not contribute to the short circuit current [55]. This drawback is only important in grids with a high
penetration of generation connected through a converter (e.g. wind turbines, photo-voltaic cells, …).
22
Another disadvantage is the harmonic injection into the power system, originating from the high
switching frequencies used in the converter. Harmonics cause extra losses and have a negative effect on
system components (transformers, compensators, …) in the surrounding grid.

Figure 3.4 Power output of fixed-speed and variable-speed wind turbine (5 MW)
as a function of wind speed (based on matlab wind turbine model)

There are several other reasons, next to the extra energy output, why more and more wind turbines are
equipped with a converter in the nacelle.

First of all, the converters can control the overall reactive power consumption of the wind turbine
electrical system. Within certain ranges, it is possible to control the absorption and production of reactive
power. Therefore, a power factor of 1 can be achieved without additional equipment. This is an important
quality in order to meet the grid code requirements of transmission system operators without using
additional power factor correcting equipment.

Another advantage of converter based topologies is that currents are tightly controlled. This means that
the torque is held more constant and rapid fluctuations in mechanical power can be temporarily stored as
kinetic energy in the inertia of the turbine (variation of rotational speed). This results in a less variable
output power, active as well as reactive, and enhances the power quality in the grid (e.g. reduction of
flicker) [55]. The mechanical stresses on the blades and other components are lower for this reason. As
said before, variable-speed wind turbines have a lower output of audible noise than fixed-speed wind
turbines [43].

Two important types of variable-speed wind turbines exist. The first uses a partial power electronic
converter rated at about one third of the wind turbine nominal power rating to feed the rotor of a wound
asynchronous generator. This topology is well known under the name Doubly-Fed Induction Generator
(DFIG) and will be discussed in section 3.3.2.1. The second option uses a full power converter and is

23
known as Direct-Drive Synchronous Generator (3.3.2.2).

3.3.2.1 Doubly-Fed Induction Generators

The Doubly-Fed Induction Generator (DFIG) topology is shown in Figure 3.5. Nowadays, this
configuration is the dominant solution for newly built wind turbines [61]. It is available in power ratings
up to 5MW and higher power ratings are under consideration. A transformer is needed for the connection
to the grid.

Figure 3.5 Doubly-Fed Induction Generator wind turbine topology

The generator is connected to the grid via two paths [51]. The first one is the direct connection of the
stator to the grid. The rotor is fed via a double power electronic converter. A variable frequency voltage
waveform is imposed on the rotor via the Rotor Side Converter (RSC). The difference between the
frequency applied to the rotor and the frequency on the stator allows the variable-speed operation of the
turbine [55].

ω rotor + ω RSC = ω stator (3-5)

ω rotor is the mechanical rotational speed of the rotor, ω stator is the rotational speed of the stator field
defined by the grid frequency.

The rating of the converter is typically 20-30% of the nominal generator power and depends on the
desired speed range [61]. The converter only handles the rotor power Protor , whereas the stator power is

directly passed to the grid. The following formulas hold

Pgen = Pstator + Protor (3-6)

ω stator
Pstator = Pgen (3-7)
ω rotor

ω rotor − ω stator
Protor = Pgen (3-8)
ω rotor

24
The sizing of the converter is based on economic considerations. A higher speed range (higher machine
slip) enables a higher energy output, but also needs a more expensive converter. A trade-off is normally
found for a converter able to vary the rotor speed about +30% of the synchronous speed [61].

The RSC controls the reactive power to and from the rotor. The Stator Side Converter (SSC) controls the
DC voltage level on the link between the RSC and SSC. Furthermore the SSC can deliver and control the
reactive power to the grid [62]. For unity power factor operation, the SSC supplies the same amount of
reactive power as the stator absorbs. Reactive compensation is therefore unnecessary in the turbine.

Compared to the FSIG topology with squirrel-cage induction generator, the rotor has an external feed
here. Slip rings are necessary to connect the RSC to the rotor. The necessary maintenance of those slip
rings poses a serious drawback on this topology especially for offshore wind turbines. As can be seen in
Figure 3.5, because of the direct connection between the stator and the grid, a gearbox is needed in this
topology for the same reasons as in the FSIG topology. This gearbox also needs important maintenance
during the lifetime of the wind turbine.

Induction machines with higher numbers of pole pairs have been investigated (e.g. p = 40) [64]. The
problem of poor power factor is partially solved by the reactive power control of the converter. The
gearbox is reduced from a three-stage type to a single-stage gearbox. The topology was compared with
others (DDSG, DFIG) in [64] and is considered as a promising option for the future.

3.3.2.2 Direct-Drive Synchronous Generators

Gearboxes are expensive components in wind turbines. For offshore wind turbines they account for 11%
of the turbine investment cost, whereas for onshore turbines their share can be up to 20% [46],[54].
Furthermore, their need for maintenance represents a high annual cost, especially for offshore wind farms
[64]. Next to that, their failure rate is not zero, and they bring down the reliability of the wind turbines
[65]. In order to avoid the presence of a gearbox in the nacelle, wind turbine manufacturers propose a
drive train based on a synchronous generator connected to the grid through a full power frequency
converter. Although DFIG based topologies are still very popular, the trends for new wind turbines more
and more concentrate on this configuration as power electronics are becoming cheaper. The topology is
shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Direct-Drive Synchronous Generator wind turbine topology

25
Synchronous generators rotate synchronously with the frequency applied to them. The relation between
the frequency applied to the generator and the synchronous rotational speed is given by

p ⋅ n synchronous
f grid = . (3-9)
60

p is the number of pole pairs of the generator, n represents the rotational speed of the machine in rpm.

The Voltage Source Converter decouples the synchronous generator from the grid. The frequency applied
to the generator can therefore differ from the grid frequency and be variable as well. The turbine blades
are directly coupled to the generator without gearbox; the generator rotates at the same rotational speed as
the blades.

The wind speed defines an optimal rotational speed for the turbine blades, based on the coefficient of
performance of the blades. Typical rotational speeds for 5 MW wind turbines are around 10 rpm
(6,9..12,1 rpm). Therefore a high number of pole pairs is needed to bring the frequency to workable
values without using a mechanical gearbox. A value of p = 60 is possible but already high. This means
that the applied frequency to the generator is in the order of 10 Hz. The Generator Side Converter
(GenSC) produces the appropriate voltage waveform to tune the generator to the optimal blade speed. The
Grid Side Converter (GridSC) controls the DC voltage on the link between the two converters and
controls the power factor of the total system (Reactive Power Control). The total active power is passed
through the converters from the generator to the grid.

A synchronous generator needs a DC excitation on the rotor in order to generate electricity. Two types of
excitation are possible. An external excitation system can be used, but this consumes power and decreases
the overall efficiency of the wind turbine by a few percent. By controlling the excitation system, the
reactive power output of the generator, and thus the output voltage, can be controlled. This is however a
small advantage because the reactive power output is controlled by the power electronic converter and
does not depend on the generator. The external excitation system is either fit in the rotor or connected via
slip rings. This type of generators is voluminous and has not been installed offshore so far.

Another option is to use permanent magnets as excitation system. Permanent Magnet Synchronous
Generators are known for their high efficiency and highly reliable power generation [66],[67]. In addition,
the high-power-density PMSGs are smaller in size, which reduces the voluminous generator at least
partially. A disadvantage of PMSGs is their high cost because of the large amounts of expensive
permanent magnet material. They are promising for the future as rare earth permanent magnet materials
are expected to drop in cost [68]. Compared to the asynchronous generators discussed before, PMSGs are
still large and therefore difficult to install offshore.

The major advantage of the direct-drive topology is the absence of a gearbox. No maintenance on the
gearbox has to be performed and an important cost factor in the wind turbine is omitted in this way.
Nevertheless, the necessary full power converter is an extra cost component and the high number of pole

26
pairs needed for the operation of this topology makes the generator expensive, voluminous and heavy
[64].

As a compromise, a synchronous generator with a smaller number of pole pairs has been proposed. A
single-stage gearbox is put between the turbine blades and the generator, instead of a 3-stage gearbox in
conventional induction generator configurations [69]. This system is known under the name Multibrid®
system (WinWind, Finland) [64].

3.4 Combination of traditional wind turbine topologies with VSC HVDC

The technical possibilities of VSC HVDC were discussed in Chapter 2. The most relevant characteristic
for the connection of offshore wind farms is the decoupling between the offshore grid and the onshore
transmission grid. This decoupling makes it possible to operate the wind farm at a different, even
variable, frequency and voltage amplitude. The black start capability needed to start up the wind farm is
delivered by the HVDC link itself. The reactive power is controlled by both converters at the ends of the
cable. Only active power is transported over the link.

In this section, the technical advantages this technology brings to an offshore wind farm are treated. The
topologies from section 3.3 are therefore reviewed in the following paragraphs in the context of an
offshore wind farm connected to the shore using VSC HVDC. Only a qualitative discussion is held in this
chapter.

3.4.1 Squirrel Cage Induction Generators

The topology of fixed-speed induction generators for wind turbines is often considered as first generation
technology. Manufacturers and wind farm developers increasingly leave this configuration because of the
disadvantages stated in paragraph 3.3.1 [70]. For offshore wind farms connected with VSC HVDC
however, some of these disadvantages do not hold anymore and some of the advantages have a higher
impact. It is therefore important to review this topology for offshore use with VSC HVDC, and not to
dismiss it right away.

First of all, the low cost of the topology is a major advantage over other topologies anytime. The limited
number of components needed for operation is an even more important advantage for offshore use. The
generator is limited in size and needs no maintenance compared to DFIG topologies. No converter is
needed compared to other variable speed topologies. This reduces the installation time and cost for
offshore wind turbines and keeps maintenance cost lower than for the DFIG topology during lifetime. The
problems mentioned in 3.3.1 for a wind farm with turbines of this topology are mainly solved when it is
connected to the onshore grid with VSC HVDC. The two most important drawbacks were the lack of
variable speed operation and the high reactive power requirements. The VSC HVDC link decouples the
offshore grid from the onshore grid and can, at least partially, take over the role of the individual
converters in variable-speed topologies and solve these problems. The absence of converters in the wind
turbines also reduces the losses in the individual turbines.

27
3.4.1.1 Variable speed operation with VSC HVDC

It is possible to control the AC voltage and frequency of the wind farm with the offshore Voltage Source
Converter. By varying the frequency of the wind farm according to the present wind speed conditions, the
synchronous rotational speed of all the turbines in the wind farm is adjusted. All turbines will have an
equal synchronous rotational speed but their individual rotational speed might differ slightly due to
variations in slip. The control of this speed can not be optimized from turbine to turbine as in classic
variable-speed topologies and a group optimum has to be found for the whole wind farm [61]. Neither can
the control be as fast as in variable-speed topologies because of the different conditions at each individual
turbine. Nevertheless, an important increase in energy output can be expected compared with HVAC
fixed-speed operation [70].

A strategy could be to use one of the ‘central’ turbines in the wind farm as a master turbine. The
frequency of the total wind farm is set optimal to the average wind speed conditions at this master turbine.
The other slave turbines accept the same synchronous speed. Wind speeds might differ throughout the
wind farm but they are nevertheless highly correlated and a spatial ‘memory effect’ exists due to the
propagation of wind gusts through the wind farm. The spatial variation of wind speeds was studied by
Nørgaard and Holttinen [71]. The various wind speeds at the individual turbine units will at any specific
time be distributed around the average wind speed of the wind farm (here assumed to be the wind speed at
the master turbine). As an approximation, the distribution is suggested to be a normal distribution. The
normalized standard deviation depends on two parameters: the spatial dimension D of the wind farm (the
distance from each turbine I to the master turbine) and the wind turbulence intensity Iturb.

The turbulence intensity can be empirically verified for a wind farm project. For offshore wind farms, the
turbulence intensity is small because of the extreme flatness of the surrounding waters. A value of Iturb =
10% is used to determine the normalized standard deviation in [71]. The distribution of wind speeds for a
turbine at 5 km, 15 km and 30 km from the master turbine is shown in Figure 3.7. A typical spacing
between individual turbines in a wind farm is 5-7 times the rotor diameter [74]. For a 5 MW wind turbine,
a typical rotor diameter is 126 m [72] leading to a turbine spacing of 630-882 m. According to the total
rating of the wind farm the dimensional parameter D will vary, but a large wind farm can already be
installed with a value equal to D = 5 km. The wind speed variation is then rather small.

The wind speed offset shown in Figure 3.7 is the offset of the average wind speed at turbine I compared
to the average wind speed at the master turbine. Short term wind speed variations, so called wind gusts,
are not taken into account. The overall wind farm frequency can not respond to these short term
variations. However, even with individual variable speed control per turbine, the response of the
rotational speed of the blades to wind gusts is limited. Due to the wind speed offset at the individual
turbines, the rotational speed is not optimal at each wind turbine. This will be discussed in more detail in
the next chapter, when the energy output of different wind farm topologies for a 300 MW wind farm is
compared.

28
Figure 3.7 Probability density function of wind speed offset with distance from master turbine D as
a parameter

3.4.1.2 Frequency range in the wind farm

From a VSC HVDC point of view, the minimum and maximum frequency of the wind farm can be
chosen in a relatively wide range. As such, the VSC HVDC link is not the limiting factor. Mainly, the
wind farm consists of iron components: transformers and generators. Those components are designed to
allow for a certain flux. When the flux in iron machines becomes too high, saturation will occur which

should be avoided by any means. The flux amplitude φˆ in a transformer leg for example is determined by
the following formula

U
φˆ = (3-10)
4,44 ⋅ f grid ⋅ n

where U is the rms voltage, fgrid represents the frequency and n the number of turns on the transformer leg.
U
The flux in an induction machine is determined by the same -ratio. In order to avoid saturation, this
f
ratio should be kept constant. Transformers are generally designed to operate at a frequency equal to 50
Hz in Europe. In a variable frequency wind farm they are operated at variable frequency. Saturation is
only avoided when the voltage is varied accordingly to the frequency.

When lowering the voltage with the frequency, the current through the transformers and generators will
increase proportionally. The low frequencies are used at low power output of the wind farm and the
currents remain within the ratings of the equipment. The maximum frequency can not be chosen too high
for two reasons. The gearboxes in the wind turbines would become very expensive because of the high

29
speed ratio between blades and generator synchronous speed. A second reason is the limited maximum
U
speed of the generators when increasing the frequency. To maintain the same -ratio, the voltage is
f
raised as well. Nevertheless, the voltage ratings of the generator limit the possible increase in voltage
amplitude. Field weakening effects then limit the resulting speed range [61].

A demonstration project was installed at Tjaereborg in Denmark [73]. The installed VSC HVDC is able to
vary the frequency in a range between 30 and 65 Hz. The voltage has to vary accordingly. The frequency
in an 8 MVA wind farm was successfully varied between 30 and 50 Hz. This is enough to take the most
important energy output gain with variable speed operation.

3.4.1.3 Reactive power requirements

The specific reactive power requirements of the wind farm based on directly coupled induction generators
can be fulfilled by the offshore VSC HVDC converter. The fast control of reactive power makes it
possible for VSC HVDC to operate a wind farm without any additional expensive components. The
offshore converter station behaves as a strong grid node for the induction generators and guarantees the
voltage stability in the offshore grid. The sharp variations in reactive power demand lead to fast voltage
variations, also known as flicker, when using HVAC to connect to the onshore grid. No reactive power is
transported over a HVDC link and the reactive power variations are not present in the onshore grid and
the onshore grid is not subject to flicker.

3.4.1.4 Disadvantages of this topology

The rotational speed of the wind turbines is still controlled by the grid and not by the wind speed at each
turbine. This yields higher mechanical stresses on the drive train components [70]. The gearbox is still
present to convert the low speed of the blades to a higher speed for the generator. The wind farm voltage
is decreased during periods of lower wind speed. This will cause higher currents than in the case with
fixed voltage. This approach is therefore assumed to have a negative effect on the losses in the collection
grid of the offshore wind farm.

3.4.2 Doubly-Fed Induction Generators

Doubly-Fed Induction Generators were discussed in section 3.3.2.1. This is currently the most popular
topology to implement variable speed operation [61]. A 5 MW topology is planned to be installed on the
Belgian North Sea in a 300 MW wind farm on the Thornton Bank [74].

3.4.2.1 Reduction of rotor power or extension of speed range

It was made clear in section 3.3.2.1 that the rating of the converter to connect the rotor was defined by the
desired speed range of the turbine blades. It is advantageous to use the variable frequency as discussed for
squirrel cage induction generators in this topology as well. The offshore grid frequency is varied in the
same way to a group optimum for all the wind turbines. The individual converters deliver individual wind

30
turbine speed adjustment. The needed machine slip is limited in this way and converters of smaller ratings
can be used. Specific control strategies can be used to limit maximum or mean slip of the connected wind
turbine generators [61]. Another possibility is to enlarge the speed variation range with the same
converter ratings and capture more energy by optimizing the tracking characteristic. The reduction of the
converters decreases the investment costs of the wind farm. An economic optimum can be found
depending on the number of turbines in the wind farm, the power rating of the individual units and the
wind conditions [61].

3.4.2.2 Disadvantages of this topology

The direct connection of the stator to the grid makes the use of a gearbox unavoidable. The slip rings on
the generator increase the generator cost and need maintenance as well. The VSC HVDC link takes over
most of the variable speed control of the turbines and it should be investigated if the extra investment in a
more complicated generator, annual slip ring maintenance and a, albeit small, converter are worth the
limited advantages they bring compared to the topology with directly connected generators.

3.4.3 Direct-Drive Synchronous Generators

The generators in this topology are separated from the grid by a full frequency converter. The frequency
of the offshore grid does not have an influence on the rotational speed of the generators and the turbine
blades. The need for frequency variation according to the wind conditions is thus less clear. On the other
side, the frequency of the offshore grid is decoupled from the onshore grid by the VSC HVDC link. A
fixed frequency can be chosen for the offshore wind farm. This frequency can differ from the onshore 50
Hz in Europe. The choice of the optimal frequency is a complicated problem and it is not the purpose of
this thesis to go to deep into details. Only some suggestions and remarks for future investigation are
made.

The only equipment present in the AC offshore grid (bordered by the converter of the VSC HVDC and
the converters of the wind turbines) are transformers and cables. The frequency should be chosen in order
to optimize the total lifetime cost of these components. The following remarks can be made:

− The volume (amount of iron) and cost of transformers depends strongly on the frequency. A higher
frequency downsizes the transformers due to the lower flux. The choice for a higher frequency can
thus reduce the investment and installation costs of the wind farm.

− The losses of transformers increase with increasing frequency. Detailed loss calculations for variable
frequency transformers are treated in [75].

− The charging currents in the cables of the wind farm collection grid depend linearly on the frequency.
Higher charging currents involve higher losses.

As an example, the use of 60 Hz (standard in the US) is put upfront. The amount of iron in the
transformers is reduced by 17%. A high frequency wind farm was proposed by Meier, Norrga and Nee

31
[76]. The frequency in the wind farm of [76] is chosen to be 500 Hz.

3.5 Conclusion

The trends in the offshore wind industry are discussed in the first paragraphs of this chapter. Future wind
farms are found to have a power rating higher than 200 MW and to be situated several tens of kilometres
from shore. The use of a distinct transmission system is then unavoidable.

The different wind turbine topologies were discussed in this chapter as well. Their advantages and
disadvantages were explained especially for offshore use. The topology with directly connected squirrel
cage induction generators (SCIG) is still under consideration in combination with VSC HVDC, whereas it
is found unfeasible in combination with HVAC. The DFIG and direct-drive topologies are possible with
both VSC HVDC and HVAC. A synchronous generator with permanent magnets as excitation is
preferable for offshore use in direct-drive topologies. A hybrid topology which compromises for
generator and gearbox is still under consideration. The most important characteristics of the different
topologies are summarized in Table 3-2. The characteristics are shown for three main components in the
drive train of the topologies: generator, gearbox and converter. The other components of the turbine units
are considered to be the same in each topology.

SCIG DFIG DDPMSG GPMSG

Generator
Complexity Simple Brushed Very complex Complex
Weight/Cost Low Medium Very high High
Gearbox
Complexity 3-stage 3-stage No gearbox Single-stage
Weight/Cost High High None Medium
Converter
Rating None ~30% of Pnom Pnom Pnom
Table 3-2 Characteristics of studied wind turbine topologies

In order to come to a more quantitative analysis in this thesis a typical wind farm is put upfront to
investigate. The power rating of the wind farm is chosen to be 300 MW and the length of the transmission
link is chosen at 50 km. The individual turbines are rated at 5 MW each.

32
4 ENERGY OUTPUT OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES

4.1 Introduction

Opposed to conventional electricity generation units, the output of a wind farm depends on an
uncontrollable input: the wind. As seen in Figure 3.4, a wind turbine’s power output is wind speed
dependent. This means that the output power of an offshore wind farm will also be wind speed dependent.
The electric power transported over the transmission cable will thus be variable in time as well. It is
useful for this reason to have a look at the wind speed distribution over time for a typical offshore wind
farm. Keeping the power speed curve of a wind turbine in mind, it is possible to calculate a power
probability density function (4.2).

The energy output of a wind turbine depends on several parameters. The use of variable speed operation
results in an increased energy output (4.3). The wider the speed range, the more energy can be captured
from the wind, especially at low wind speeds. A multi-turbine speed control was proposed for the SCIG
topology in combination with a VSC HVDC link. The effect on the annual energy output of the multi-
turbine frequency approach is investigated in section 4.4. Furthermore, the studied topologies have
differences in the efficiencies of their drive train components (Table 3-2). The efficiency of each topology
is discussed in section 4.5. The energy yield of each topology is calculated.

4.2 Power probability density function

Wind speeds are distributed in time and commonly described by a Weibull distribution. A Weibull
probability density function is defined by two parameters, which define the shape I and scale (A) of the
distribution. The probability density function is given by
C
C −1 v wind
C v wind −
pdf (v wind ) A,C = e A
. (4-1)
A A

For offshore wind farms, the two parameters are calculated out of a long time series of wind speed
measurements at sea. The values used in this thesis are A = 9,8 m/s and C = 2,1. These values are
calculated out of measurements at the Euro Plat Form (EPF) in the southern North Sea (see Figure 4.1)
[77] and are applicable values for an offshore wind farm about 50 km from shore. The resulting
probability and cumulative density functions are shown in Figure 4.2.

For each wind speed value exists an according wind turbine power output as shown in Figure 3.4.
Combining the power-speed curve with the wind speed probability function defines a probability function
for the power output. Several operational possibilities exist. When the wind speed is beneath the cut-in
wind speed of the wind turbine, the power output is 0 MW. Between the cut-in wind speed and the
nominal wind speed, the wind turbine operates below nominal output power. At the nominal wind speed,
the power output reaches the nominal output power and maintains this value due to pitch angle regulation

33
until the cut-off wind speed is reached. Above the cut-off wind speed, the wind turbine is stopped because
of safety reasons.

.
Figure 4.1 Situation of Euro Plat Form measurements in the North Sea [77]

Figure 4.2 Probability density function and cumulative density function for wind speeds
in offshore wind farm (Average wind speed = 8,68 m/s)

The speed range of the turbine blades influences the power-speed curve for each topology at low wind
speeds. The effect is discussed in Appendix B. The annual energy yield difference between the topologies
under study is small and the effect is not taken into account further. The power-speed curve of a DFIG
turbine is assumed to be valid for both the SCIG and direct-drive topologies as well. The minimum
rotational speed of the turbine blades is 6,9 rpm and the maximum is set at 12,1 rpm [72]. The resulting
power probability density function is shown in Figure 4.3 and compared with a fixed-speed turbine
topology. Fixed-speed turbines are assumed to operate only at nominal rotational speed of 12,1 rpm.

The fixed-speed wind farm is discussed first. For more than 18% of the time, the wind farm is not

34
operational because of lack of wind (cut-in wind speed = 4,33 m/s). For about 25% of the time, the wind
farm operates at nominal output power (nominal wind speed = 11,5 m/s to cut-out wind speed = 30 m/s).
The remaining 57% of the time is distributed over the power range with a higher probability in lower
power zones due to the cubic relation of power to wind speed.

For a variable-speed wind farm, a serious increase in operation time and energy output of the wind farm
can be seen. The turbines are connected to the grid when the blades reach a rotational speed of 6,9 rpm
and can operate in a continuous speed range up to 12,1 rpm [74]. The time the wind farm is not
operational due to lack of wind is reduced to 8%. This is because variable-speed operation allows wind
turbines to capture energy from the wind at lower wind speeds (cut-in wind speed = 3 m/s). The extra
time of operation is distributed over the different power zones. The nominal wind speed is lowered to
11,45 m/s. The cut-out wind speed is set at 30 m/s as well.

30%

25%

20%
Probability [%]

Fixed-speed
15%
Variable-speed

10%

5%

0%
0% 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100% 100%
Power output P_mech [% of P_nom]

Figure 4.3 Power probability density function for offshore wind farm
(based on matlab wind turbine model)

Figure 4.3 is important for the transmission cable between the wind farm and the onshore grid. The wind
farm power probability is the probability of the transported power through the cable. The active power is
proportional to the captured wind power. The reactive power depends on the power factor of the
generating units, the type of cable and the action of compensators at the endings of the cable. The
probability of the active power is used in the next chapter to calculate the total current and the related
losses in the transmission system.

4.3 Energy output of wind turbines

Given the wind conditions discussed in section 4.2 (Figure 4.2), it is possible to calculate the expected
annual energy yield of a wind turbine. The annual energy output can be found by multiplying the Weibull
probability distribution function of Figure 4.2 with the power-speed curve of Figure 3.4 and integrate this
function over a whole year. The results of this calculation are shown in Table 4-1. The numbers in Table
4-1 only show the energy taken at the blades of the turbines. The efficiency of the drive train and the
losses in the transmission system to shore are not taken into account so far because they depend on the

35
topology.

Turbine Energy Wind farm Energy Capacity

output (5MW) output (300 MW) Factor

Fixed-speed turbines 18 962 MWh 1 137 697 MWh 43,29%

Variable-speed turbines 20 516 MWh 1 231 020 MWh 46,84%
Table 4-1 Energy output comparison between fixed- and variable-speed wind turbines

The energy output of a wind farm with variable speed operation is 8,20% higher than a wind farm with
fixed speed operation. Other authors state net energy gains of 9-18% with variable-speed wind turbines,
e.g. [59],[60]. The difference between the calculated gain with the model and the stated gains by other
authors is due to the use of offshore wind data, whereas [59]-[60] use onshore wind data. For offshore
wind turbines, the average wind speed is higher and the largest energy gains that are made at the lowest
wind speeds are less important in the total energy output. This is discussed in more detail in Appendix C.

4.4 Multi turbine frequency approach

The proposed topology with VSC HVDC and SCIGs uses a common rotational speed control for all the
turbines, whereas the other topologies have individual speed control (3.4.1.1). The effect of this approach
on the annual energy yield of the wind farm is investigated in this section. The approach with one master
turbine in the wind farm and the rest being slave turbines will be used. The rotational speed of the slave
turbines will not be optimal to their respective wind speeds. The optimal rotational speed as a function of
wind speed for a 5MW variable speed turbine is shown in Figure 4.4. The speed range is taken from the
Repower 5M topology (DFIG, 5MW, = 6,9..12,1 rad/s) [115].

The optimal rotational speed for each 5MW wind turbine, using this speed range, is shown in Figure 4.4.
With optimal rotational speed is meant, the speed which results in the highest coefficient of performance
and thus power output. The rotational speed of a slave turbine can only be not optimal (not equal to its
optimal value) in the wind speed range in which variable speed operation is used. It can be seen on Figure
4.4 that this range is situated between 7,24 m/s and 12,63 m/s. Although this speed range seems to be
small, the wind speeds in the proposed wind farm are within this range for 40% of the time (Figure 4.2).
The output power of each individual turbine is limited to the nominal output power by the pitch angle
regulation for wind speeds higher than the nominal wind speed of 11,45 m/s.

The probability of the wind speed offsets (difference between master and slave turbine speed) was shown
in Figure 3.7 and depends on the spatial distance between the slave turbines and the master turbine. The
optimal placement of the turbines to form a wind farm will not be discussed in this thesis but, given that
60 turbines of 5 MW are needed to form a 300 MW wind farm, it is fair to state that the maximum
distance between master and slave turbine will be around 5 km.

36
 Figure 4.4 Optimal rotational speed of 5MW wind turbine as function of wind speed
(based on matlab wind turbine model)

As an example, a slave turbine at 5 km from the master turbine is now considered. The situation for a
master turbine wind speed of 9 m/s is shown in Figure 4.5. As an approximation, the wind speed offset
between slave and master is taken not to be higher than 0,5 m/s. As seen in Figure 3.7, this covers more
than 99% of the situations. The offset of the rotational speed of the wind turbine compared to its optimal
value is shown in blue in Figure 4.5 and is taken from Figure 4.4. The use of a non-optimal rotational
speed results in a difference between the actual power taken from the wind and the theoretically
maximum power that can be taken at this wind speed if the turbine would rotate at its optimal speed. The
power not taken from the wind due to this non-optimal rotational speed is calculated for a 5 MW wind
turbine model and depicted in red. Taking into account the wind speed offset distribution of Figure 3.7 the
expected value of the power not taken from the wind at the slave turbine is 0,484 kW for a master turbine
wind speed of 9 m/s. The same reasoning can be carried out for every wind speed in the variable speed
range of the master turbine. The result is shown in Figure 4.6. This curve is aggregated with the wind
speed probability function of Figure 4.2 to calculate the annual energy loss due to the multi turbine
frequency approach. This is found to be 1,578 MWh for a slave turbine situated 5 km from the master
turbine. Compared to the expected annual energy yield of a variable speed turbine of 20 GWh, this loss is
negligible.

Knowing that the majority of the turbines are situated closer to the master turbine (< 5km) than the
turbine studied above, the total energy loss due to the multi turbine frequency approach can be neglected
for the wind farm considered in this thesis. The energy taken at the turbine blades is approximately equal
for each variable-speed topology under consideration.

37
 Figure 4.5 Power not taken from wind due to multi turbine speed control
(turbine at 5km from master turbine; wind speed at master turbine = 9 m/s)

Figure 4.6 Expected value of power not taken from the wind at each wind speed in the variable
speed zone due to multi turbine speed control (turbine at 5km from master turbine)

38
4.5 Drive-train efficiency

The different wind turbine topologies under consideration have each a specific drive train assembly. To
simplify the loss analysis, only the efficiencies of the three main components are considered: the gearbox,
the generator and the converter. The loss data for these components were found for 3 MW topologies in
[64]. All components have lower efficiencies when not loaded at their nominal ratings, which is often the
case for wind turbines. The data are therefore average values for wind turbines. The data from [64] are
extrapolated for the 5 MW wind turbines used in this thesis.

SCIG DFIG DDPMSG GPMSG

Generator 98,4% 98,0% 95,9% 97,9%
Gearbox 93,8% 93,8% --- 96,9%
Converter --- 98,33% 95,4% 95,4%
TOTAL 92,3% 90,4% 91,4% 90,4%
Table 4-2 Efficiencies of different components of drive train [64]

The data given in Table 4-2 show that the SCIG topology has the most efficient drive train. This is mainly
because of the simple, efficient induction generator and the absence of a converter. The connection of the
rotor via slip rings makes the induction generator in the DFIG topology less efficient. The DDPMSG has
the lowest efficiency mainly due to its large size (high number of pole pairs) [35].

It is clear from Table 4-2 that the gearbox, if present, is an important loss component in the drive train.

The converter efficiency of the DFIG topology is given for the nominal power rating of the turbine. The
converter in a DFIG topology processes around 30% of the total power. This explains the differences with
the converters in the DDPMSG and GPMSG topologies.

The efficiencies are used in Chapter 6 to compare the different topologies on an economic basis. The
given drive-train efficiencies are combined with the numbers given in Table 4-1 for a variable speed
turbine. The resulting annual energy output and capacity factors are shown in Table 4-3.

Turbine Energy Capacity

output Factor
SCIG 18 935 MWh 43,23%
DFIG 18 541 MWh 42,33%
DDPMSG 18 761 MWh 42,84%
GPMSG 18 549 MWh 42,35%
Table 4-3 Annual energy output and capacity factor
for different variable speed wind turbine topologies

39
4.6 Conclusion

The output of wind turbines depends on the wind speed. Wind speeds are Weibull distributed in time.
This results in a distributed output power for a wind farm. The distribution of this output power was
calculated in this chapter for an offshore wind farm situated 50 km from shore. This distribution will be
used in the next chapter to calculate the transmission cable losses for a 300 MW offshore wind farm.

Several wind farm topologies were proposed in Chapter 3. One of the topologies uses VSC HVDC in
combination with directly connected induction generators. Variable speed operation is achieved with
variable frequency operation of the offshore wind farm collection grid. This involves a multi turbine
frequency approach which results in one common rotational speed for all the turbines. The spatial
distribution of wind speeds throughout the wind farm will result in a non-optimal rotational speed. The
effect of this approach on the annual energy yield was investigated in this chapter and found to be
negligible.

The drive-train efficiencies of the different wind turbine topologies were given in this chapter. This
resulted in capacity factors for the different topologies between 42,33% and 43,23%.

40
5 DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF VSC HVDC AND HVAC

5.1 Introduction

A wind farm rated at 300 MW and situated 50 km from the Point of Common Coupling (PCC) is
investigated in this thesis. Two possible transmission technologies are compared for the connection of the
wind farm to the onshore grid: VSC HVDC and HVAC. Both transmission systems are dimensioned to
the needs of the proposed wind farm in this chapter. An absolute requirement for the transmission system
is black start capability to start the generators in the wind farm.

Wind farms built nowadays need to fulfill grid code requirements. Those grid codes incorporate power
factor control, frequency response and voltage dip ride-through capability. A part of this chapter treats the
compliance of the wind farm to the latest grid code requirements in countries with a high wind energy
penetration in the electricity portfolio (e.g. Germany and UK). For HVAC as transmission technology,
additional measures have to be taken to fulfill those grid code requirements.

The losses of both transmission systems are compared in the last part of this chapter. The power
probability function calculated in Chapter 4 is used to calculate the annual energy loss for a 300 MW
offshore wind farm for both transmission technologies.

5.2 Dimensioning of the transmission system for an offshore wind farm

A transmission system is designed according to the power it is expected to transport. The apparent power
output of a wind farm is given by

2 2
S wf = Pwf + Qwf . (5-1)

The active power Pwf of a wind farm depends on the wind speed and a nominal value of 300 MW is taken
in this thesis. The reactive power output of the wind farm depends on the power factor of the wind farm
and is calculated as

sin φ 1 − PF 2
Qwf = Pwf tan φ = Pwf = Pwf . (5-2)
cos φ PF
The wind farms considered with HVAC have power factor controlling converters in their topologies. The
power factor (PF) is kept close to unity. The wind farms considered with VSC HVDC can either consist
of directly connected generators or generators connected via a converter. For a wind farm based on
directly connected asynchronous machines, a typical PF in nominal operation is 0,89 [55]. This leads to a
reactive power requirement of 153,69 MVAr (lagging) during nominal operation. In order to keep the
voltage at its nominal level in the offshore grid, the reactive power will be delivered by the offshore
converter. This results in an apparent power rating of 337,08 MVA for the offshore converter. For the
converter-based wind turbine topologies, the power factor will be kept close to unity when connected to

41
the grid with VSC HVDC.

Grid code requirements on power factor control are stated in countries with a high portion of wind power.
A more thorough discussion on grid code requirements will be given later in this chapter but some
indicative figures are necessary here. The power factor onshore must for example be controllable down to
0,95 [61]. This results in an apparent power rating of 315,79 MVA for the onshore cable end bus.

The calculated power ratings will now be used to dimension the transmission cable for both options: VSC
HVDC and HVAC. Both systems are assumed to be coupled to an onshore grid node at 400 kV (Point of
Common Coupling) and an offshore wind farm node at 33 kV.

5.2.1 VSC HVDC

ABB offers several ratings of VSC HVDC links. In order to come to a more standardized approach, the
possibilities are ordered in a matrix. The matrix is shown in Table 5-1 [22].

Table 5-1 HVDC Light® matrix

Nine different modules are proposed, numbered M1 to M9. The possibility exists to choose between 3
levels of DC voltage and 3 current ratings. A choice for one of the topologies is decisive for a lot of
parameters because of the standardized production of these modules. A first constraint is the MVA rating
of the cable. Only active power is transmitted over the DC cable but the converter stations handle the
reactive power as well. Therefore the above proposed apparent power is used to choose a module. It is
best practice not to overrate the chosen module too much, because the operational features depreciate
significantly when a module is operated below nominal conditions.

A good choice for the proposed wind farm (300 MW) is the M5 module of Table 5-1 which has a base
power of 376 MVA. For a 50 km cable, the output power at the receiving end is expected to be 361 MVA
due to the losses in the converter stations and the cables. This option operates at a nominal current of
1140 A and uses 2 DC cables (+ 150 kV). The maximal DC current rating is 1233 A [22]. The cross
section of the copper conductor is 1200 mm2.

The voltage on the AC side of the converter is 195 kV and a transformer is needed to transform the
collection grid voltage of the wind farm to this value. A transformer is included in the converter station
onshore as well, to connect the cable system to the PCC at 400 kV.

Although the operational experience with VSC HVDC is limited (around 10 finished projects), M5 is one
of the more popular modules and experience was gained with this module in successful projects, e.g. in
USA (Cross Sound Cable [18]), Australia (Murray Link [17]) and Estonia (Estlink [30]). Nevertheless, a
converter of this rating has not been built on an offshore platform yet. The only experience with offshore
42
converters gained so far is in the Troll A project in Norway [32]. This project has a power rating of 2 x 40
MW and proved to be very successful.

5.2.2 HVAC
The design of a HVAC cable is less standardized and leaves more variables to decide on than a VSC
HVDC system. The design is performed based on choices made in existing or planned wind farms and on
logical reasoning. The data used, are provided by ABB in [78].

A first important choice to make is the choice between 3 single-core cables or a 3-core cable. The system
with 3 single-core cables has one cable per phase whereas a 3-core cable combines the 3 phases in one
cable. A picture of a 3-core cable and a single-core cable is shown in Figure 5.1 (left). The advantage of 3
single-core cables is that a higher current rating is achieved with the same amount of copper conductor.
The amount of copper is an important part of the price of the cable. The construction of the cables is also
simpler than for a 3-core cable. Single-core cables are thus less expensive to purchase than 3-core cables
with the same power rating. Nevertheless, more cables have to be laid and to keep the system
symmetrical, transposition of the cables is needed after certain intervals. With transposition is meant that
the single-phase cables have to change in relative position to keep the system balanced. The screens of the
cables have to be cross-bonded as well to eliminate sheath circulating currents [79]. The cost of
transposition is high, especially at sea where it is a real technical challenge and increases the installation
cost of the cables. For long submarine cables it is less expensive to put more 3-core cables than to bother
about transposition of single-phase cables. Therefore it is chosen to use the 3-core cable. This is a
common choice for submarine transmission systems and is used for example for the connection of the
Belgian wind farm on the Thornton Bank [74].

Figure 5.1 XLPE 3-core cable and single phase cable (left) and reinforced submarine XLPE 3-core
cable (right) (Courtesy of ABB)

Another choice to make is the insulation material of the cables. More and more manufacturers advise to
use Cross-Linked Poly Ethylene insulated cables (XLPE). They have a high level of performance and are
suitable for submarine application. The shunt capacitance is lower than for oil-impregnated cables used
before and they are considered to be more environmentally friendly [80]. The armor is made of steel,

43
whereas for land cables non-magnetic materials are used. This is done to give the cables extra strength in
the sea (e.g. impact of ship anchors). The reinforced submarine version of the 3-core HVAC cable is
shown in Figure 5.1 as well (right).

The conductor material is chosen to be copper for its high conductivity (lower losses) and to reduce the
number of cables needed to transport the electric energy. Alternatively, aluminum cables would be less
expensive to purchase but more difficult and costly to install. The trade-off between copper and
aluminum is strongly dependent on the market price of these materials.

The maximum power transported depends on the voltage rating and the current rating of the cables. The
voltage level can be chosen up to 245 kV for 3-core cables. No joints have been constructed for extruded
AC cables for higher voltages than 245 kV [50]. The choice of the transmission voltage is a trade-off
between losses and cable cost. The choice for a higher voltage leads to lower currents in the cable for the
same transported power and thus lower losses. The reactive charging current produced by the cable is
voltage dependent as well and increases with the voltage magnitude. A higher charging current increases
the losses of the cable system. The insulation requirements become higher for higher voltages and the
cable is more expensive. The transformer in the wind farm is also larger and more expensive if a higher
voltage step has to be performed. It has to be mentioned that if the PCC node onshore is at a reasonable
voltage (e.g. 150 kV) for the submarine transmission, this node voltage might be decisive for the cable
voltage and facilitate the voltage choice. The onshore transformer can be omitted in this way. The voltage
levels used in the onshore grid (and available in coastal regions) are country dependent and thus vary
from case to case. The PCC voltage is assumed to be 400 kV in this thesis and a transformer is necessary
onshore. The 245 kV cable is claimed by ABB but higher voltages than 150 kV have not been used so far
in practical submarine installations [81]. The chosen line voltage is therefore 150 kV. This is a standard
choice for submarine cables of this rating in Europe [62]. This voltage level is also used for the
connection of the wind farm on the Thornton Bank (300 MW) [74] and the Danish Horns Rev wind farm
(160 MW) [82].

After the voltage level is chosen, it is possible to decide on the conductor cross section according to the
current rating of the cable [78]. The nominal power of 300 MW gives rise to a maximum active current
through the cable system of

Pwf
I active = = 1154,7 A . (5-3)
3U cable
This can not be transported with one cable and at least two 3-core cables are needed in parallel. Two
cables with a conductor cross section of 500 mm2 per phase are chosen. The current rating is 655 A per
cable [78].

HVAC cables represent a shunt capacitance in the grid. This capacitance causes a reactive charging
current when the cable is operational. A capacitance of C = 0.17 F/km is reported in [78] for the chosen
cable. This capacitance exists between the phases and the ground. Therefore, the phase voltage is used

44
instead of the line voltage in the calculation of the charging current

U cable 150kV
I C = 2 ⋅ π ⋅ f grid ⋅ ⋅ C cable = 2 ⋅ π ⋅ 50 Hz ⋅ ⋅ 0,17 µF / km = 4,6 Ar / km (5-4)
3 3

A charging current of 4,5 Ar/km is reported after measurement in [78]. A shunt capacitor, and as such
also a HVAC cable, is a producer of reactive power (leading power factor). In order to keep the power
factor within a reasonable range, this reactive power should be compensated. The charging current
becomes considerable for longer cables and reduces the current rating left for transport of active power.
The situation is shown in Figure 5.2 for the chosen cables with only compensation onshore as well as with
compensation at both cable ends. For a 300 MW wind farm with 2 parallel cables, the critical lengths are
67 and 136 km respectively.

Figure 5.2 Maximum transmission capacity per 3-core cable at 150 kV (cross section = 500 mm²)

The reactive power produced by the cable can be used to contribute to the Var generation needed to
realize the grid code requirements. Nevertheless, the reactive power of HVAC cables is not controllable
and extra reactive compensation equipment will be needed to achieve a controllable power factor at the
cable ends.

Next to the capacitance, the resistance and inductance of the cable play an important role for cable
calculations. The resistance is reported in [78] to be 0,0366 /km (DC resistance). The inductance can be
calculated as [79]

s
Lcable = 0,05 + 0,2 ⋅ ln mH / km (5-5)
r

with s the distance between the conductor axes and r the conductor radius. The distance between the
conductors s is assumed to be 4r. This results in an inductance of 0,33 mH/km.

45
5.3 Black start of a wind farm

During startup, a wind farm behaves as a ‘load only’ network. A voltage waveform with appropriate
amplitude and frequency has to be applied to the wind farm in order to bring the generators online.
Depending on the chosen type of generators and wind turbine topologies, the wind farm has typical active
and reactive power requirements. A transmission system that can deliver these requirements without the
help of additional equipment is said to have black start capability in this context.

5.3.1 VSC HVDC

HVDC connections did not play a major role in the connection of wind farms so far. One of the reasons is
the black start capability needed to start up a wind farm. The required sinusoidal voltage waveform to
connect the generators has to be created offshore out of the DC voltage on the link. The traditional LCC
HVDC does not have this black start capability. LCC HVDC needs a voltage waveform for the
commutation of the thyristors in its converter [83] and additional equipment is required to bring the wind
farm to operation. Possible solutions are the installation of a STATCOM with black start capability [25]
or a diesel-driven generator [8]. The investment and operation costs of these additional components made
LCC HVDC too costly to implement for wind farm applications. Another reason is the considerable size
of the converter station and its lack of reactive power control.

With the introduction of VSC HVDC, black start capability became possible for DC transmission systems
as was explained in 2.4.3. When starting the wind farm as a black net, the DC link is energized from the
onshore converter station. The offshore converter station is energized on the DC side. When the power
electronic switches in the offshore station are deblocked, it is possible to determine both voltage
amplitude and frequency in the wind farm. The AC voltage can be smoothly ramped up by the VSC. In
this way, transient over-voltages and inrush currents in the wind farm cable system can be prevented [73].
This operation mode is called ‘passive net operation’ [84]. Because both AC voltage amplitude and
frequency are controlled by the offshore converter, the onshore converter has to control the DC voltage.
The onshore converter can control the reactive power from and to the onshore grid as well. The passive
net operation is maintained for several minutes before the wind turbines are connected, to assure the
stable operation of the wind farm grid.

When the wind farm voltage is considered constant, the wind turbine blades are allowed to speed up
under the influence of the wind. When they reach the required speed of operation, they are connected to
the AC wind farm grid. At the point where induction generators start to deliver power, they draw a
reactive current from the grid to magnetize the machine [58]. This reactive current can be several times
the nominal current of the machine. The reactive power is delivered by the offshore converter by
controlling the voltage difference over the phase reactor of the station (AC voltage control) in case of
directly connected induction generators. When the generator is connected in a DFIG or full frequency
converter configuration, the converter takes over the reactive power control of the generator.

The active power produced by the wind turbines is absorbed by the offshore converter and transported to

46
the grid. There is no difference for a wind turbine being connected to a strong AC system or to a VSC
HVDC converter station. The VSC HVDC offshore converter behaves as a slack bus in the offshore grid,
absorbing the produced active power of the wind turbines, hereby controlling the offshore frequency and
delivering the required reactive power to control the AC voltage [84].

5.3.2 HVAC
The AC transmission cable between the onshore grid and the wind farm is used to transmit the voltage
waveform to startup the wind farm. The voltage amplitude might differ offshore from the amplitude
onshore and there might be a phase shift between both voltages as well, but more or less the voltage
waveform offshore will be the same as onshore. A long HVAC cable can be approximated by the
concatenation of several equivalent sections. A single-phase equivalent section is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3 Equivalent section of HVAC cable

To calculate the voltage waveform in the wind farm during black start, a concatenation of equivalent
sections of 1 km each is used. The node at the PCC onshore is brought at 150 kV by the strong grid
connected to this node. The PCC node is taken as a slack bus for the wind farm and the voltage angle is
set to 0˚. At the offshore end of the cable the current is 0A (open circuit) because the generators are not
connected yet. The voltage along the cable is calculated as

U1
U ( x) = ⋅ cosh (γ ⋅ x ) + Z W I 1 sinh (γ ⋅ x ) (5-6)
3

The current in each point of the cable is given by

47
 U1
I ( x) = I 1 cosh (γ ⋅ x ) + sinh (γ ⋅ x ) (5-7)
3Z W

The transmission coefficient γ and the surge impedance Z W are given by

γ = (R + jX L ) jX C = 4e − 4 + j 2,4e − 3 km-1 (5-8)

R + jX L
ZW = = 44,72 − j 7,66 (5-9)
jX C

To calculate the voltage amplitude at the offshore cable end (x = 50 km in this case), the current at the
onshore node is needed. Although the wind farm does not produce any power during the black start
procedure, this current is not equal to 0 A due to the charging current in the cable. For a cable without
compensation equipment (total charging current provided by onshore grid), this results in an offshore
voltage wave with amplitude 151 kV shifted 0,14˚ in phase angle compared to the onshore voltage wave.
Because of the higher voltage offshore in this situation, the reactive power produced by the cable is
pushed to the onshore grid. The current at the PCC node is calculated at 232,3 A and purely reactive. This
was expected because the offshore node behaves as an open-circuit during start-up and does not take any
power. This number corresponds with the value of 4,6 A/km of the charging current mentioned before.
Having all the reactive power produced by the cable available at the onshore node, is an unfeasible
situation. To achieve a better balanced cable system, reactive compensation will be added at both ends of
the cable to redistribute the produced reactive power of the cable. At the moment the generators are
connected to the grid, active power will be produced and transported through the link. The reactive power
balance of the AC cables varies with the transferred power. The low inductance between the ends of the
cable makes the solution sensitive to these variations. This will have repercussions on the voltage
amplitudes and phase angles at the ends of the cable. These values should be kept within acceptable
ranges with the help of reactive compensation. A further discussion on reactive compensation at the ends
of the HVAC cable will follow after the grid code requirements are discussed. It will be possible then to
dimension the reactive compensation (5.5). The current distribution in the HVAC cables will be discussed
together with the cable losses in section 5.6.

5.4 Reactive power requirements on the offshore node

5.4.1 Directly connected induction generators

As explained in section 3.3.1, a wind farm based on directly connected induction generators has a reactive
power demand over the whole range of operation. As mentioned before, during nominal operation a
typical power factor of 0,89 can be expected [55]. This represents a total amount of 153,69 MVAr as was
calculated in section 5.2.

During startup of induction generators, a very high reactive ‘inrush’ current is drawn from the grid. This
inrush current yields a lower momentary power factor during startup (close to 0) [85] and is a transient

48
effect. Due to the fact that not all wind turbines start operation at exactly the same time and the transient
nature of these currents, the power factor varies more gently for a large wind farm. It is assumed that the
highest reactive power demand exists during nominal operation of the wind turbines.

The SCIG wind farm topology is only considered with VSC HVDC in this thesis. The reactive power
requirement of the asynchronous generators puts a serious burden on the offshore converter station. At
nominal power output, the reactive power mounts up to 0,4 pu of the converter rated power for the chosen
M5 module. The PQ-diagram of the rectifier (offshore converter) is shown in Figure 5.4. The grey zone
represents the possible reactive power demands of the wind farm and is within the ratings of the chosen
VSC HVDC link at nominal voltage in the wind farm.

The PQ-diagram in Figure 5.4 shows the limits in active and reactive power of the offshore rectifier. To
deliver Q to a grid, the output voltage of the converter is raised above the grid voltage as was discussed in
section 2.3.2. The limit on Q imposed on the capacitive side is determined by the voltage limits of the
power electronic switches. In case the reactive capability of the offshore converter would not be enough
to deliver the reactive power demand of the wind farm, extra switchable capacitors can be added in each
wind turbine. This would increase the cost of the wind farm but lower the losses in the offshore converter
as well.

Figure 5.4 Capability chart of offshore VSC (Rectifier)

(grey zone = possible wind farm P,Q-demand)

5.4.2 Generators connected via a converter

Wind farms based on generators connected to the grid via a converter do not have explicit reactive power
demands. Their power factors are kept close to unity by the converters.

The reactive power control of VSC HVDC is less exploited for these topologies. Only small variations in
reactive power are needed at the offshore station in order to control the AC voltage in the wind farm.
HVAC cables are a source of reactive power when a voltage is put at their ends. Both parallel cables will
deliver part of this reactive power to the wind farm. Compensation will be needed in the offshore wind

49
farm as the cables themselves are an uncontrollable source of reactive power. The reactive compensation
is discussed together with the grid code requirements in the next paragraph.

5.5 Grid Code compliance at the Point of Common Coupling

As the total installed capacity of wind energy in the European grid increases, the reliable and secure
operation of the transmission network needs further consideration. In the early stages of wind energy
development, wind turbines especially influenced the distribution grids. With the introduction of large
wind farms, the focus has switched from small scale distributed generation to large scale, centralized
connection of wind farms in the grid. The transmission grids are therefore increasingly influenced. Grid
operators tend to keep the power factor around unity everywhere in the grid. Induction generators are a
sink of reactive power and bring down the system voltage. Therefore, in countries with a high penetration
of wind energy (e.g. Germany, Denmark, UK,…), transmission system operators have released more
stringent ‘grid codes’ concerning the connection of wind farms. The main objective is to limit the effects
of large wind power parks on network quality and stability [86]. From large wind farms, also offshore, it
is expected that they provide reactive power control, frequency response and voltage dip ride-through
capability [87]. Not all European grid operators have these grid codes for wind farms, but it can be
expected that they will impose them in the upcoming years when more wind farms are connected. The
trend of the release of more stringent grid codes is followed in this thesis (UK and Germany).

5.5.1 Reactive power or power factor control

The reactive power control is described by transmission system operators in power factor charts.
According to the active power output of the wind farm, the power factor at the point of connection in the
onshore grid should be controllable. An example of the range in which the power factor should be
variable for the UK grid (National Grid Company) is shown in Figure 5.5 [87],[57]. Comparable power
factor requirements were stated by E.ON-netz in Germany [88],[56]. The grid operator will ask the wind
farm operator for a certain power factor according to the grid conditions (e.g. voltage level). A minimum
requirement in most countries is a power factor close to unity anytime. The power factor chart of Figure
5.5 is used in this thesis.

50
 Figure 5.5 Power factor requirement for wind farm in UK (National Grid Company)

5.5.1.1 VSC HVDC

No reactive power is transported over a DC link. The onshore converter station of the VSC HVDC link
can control the reactive power injected in or absorbed from the grid. Therefore, limited by the MVA
ratings of the link, any amount of Q can be absorbed or delivered and the power factor can be controlled
accordingly. The M5 module has a power rating of 376 MVA. Therefore, with the grid voltage at 1 pu
and the wind farm operating at nominal power (300 MW), there are still 226 MVAr (PF = 0,7979) left for
reactive compensation. This amount of reactive power can not be reached on the leading side of the P,Q
diagram as could be seen in Figure 2.8. When the VSC wants to inject reactive power in the grid, the
converter output voltage, and thus the voltage over the IGBTs, is raised above the AC grid voltage. Due
to voltage constraints on the power electronic components the amount of deliverable reactive power is
constrained when the AC grid voltage is already high. Especially when the AC voltage in the grid is
higher than 1 pu, the capability of VSC HVDC to generate additional Q becomes limited. However, the
higher the voltage in the AC onshore grid, the less probable is the extra need for reactive power. When
the AC grid voltage is low, the VSC has full reactive power capability. On the lagging side, there is no
other specific constraint than the MVA rating of the converter. To achieve a power factor of 0,95 as
defined by the NGC grid code in Figure 5.5, the maximum amount of reactive power that must be
delivered by the converter is 98,61 MVAr. This is within the ratings of the onshore VSC station as can be
seen in Figure 5.6. The grey zone depicts the range in which the reactive power should be variable. It can
be concluded that VSC HVDC does not need any additional equipment to fulfill the most stringent grid
code requirements on power factor control at the Point of Common Coupling.

51
 Figure 5.6 Capability chart of onshore VSC (inverter) (grey zone = grid code requirement)

5.5.1.2 HVAC

HVAC cables produce reactive power. This is caused by the dominant shunt capacitance of the cables. It
makes the interaction of the transmission cable with the surrounding power system more complicated
than for systems using AC overhead lines or HVDC. The reactive charging current redistributes over the
cable length depending on the voltage amplitudes and angles at both ends of the cable. The traditional
approximate formulas for P (2-1) and Q (2-2) based on the voltage amplitudes and phase angles on the
ends do not longer hold for HVAC cables due to this shunt reactance. The current in the cables and the
voltage along the cables are calculated with the formulas from section 5.3.2.

Reactive compensation is chosen to be installed at both ends of the cable to minimize the losses due to the
reactive current. The reactive power produced by the cable is furthermore assumed to be equally
distributed over both cable ends. Half of the total reactive power of the cable is thus present at the
onshore node during operation, whereas the other 50% is present at the offshore cable end. The total
reactive power produced by a cable is calculated as

U cable
Qcable = 3 ⋅ U cable ⋅ 2πf grid C cable L = 59,8MVAr (5-10)
3

Two parallel HVAC cables are needed for the connection of the 300 MW wind farm. A total reactive
power of 59,8 MVAr is thus present at both cable ends and should be compensated. Offshore this is done
by two on/off inductive reactors both rated at 29,9 MVAr. These reactors are switched together with their
respective cable. The same reactors (2 x 29,9 MVAr) are installed at the onshore node as well. Therefore,
a power factor unity is achieved for the transmission system with all the reactors switched on with their
respective cables. Nevertheless, the onshore node has to fulfill the power factor requirements of Figure
5.5 and the power factor should therefore be variable and controllable. There are several possibilities to
achieve variable reactive power compensation onshore.
52
The simplest solution is a combination of switched passive elements, i.e. switched capacitors and
inductors. Although simple and inexpensive, there are several disadvantages related to this technique
[86]. The available reactive power varies quadratic with the applied voltage. During voltage sags, these
reactors lose most of their capability. Depending on the amount of switched component branches, the
reactive power can only be altered in relatively large steps. Due to the limited switching speed of the
reactors, the dynamic performance of this solution is reduced. Furthermore, switching transients have to
be accepted and regular maintenance of the mechanical breakers is needed. This solution is found,
although inexpensive, not feasible for the purpose of dynamic power factor control.

A well known and widely used reactive power compensator with better dynamic performance than the
switched reactors described above is the Static Var Compensator (SVC). The SVC combines thyristor
controlled capacitors and inductances. With the use of a SVC, a smooth variation of reactive power over
the complete installed power range is possible. This dynamic performance is sufficient to meet the
reactive power requirements shown in Figure 5.5 [86]. The mechanical switches are replaced by
electronic switching components which reduces the need for maintenance. Disadvantages are the strongly
reduced capabilities during voltage dips. The SVC can neither start its operation when no grid voltage is
present due to the thyristors. Another disadvantage is the considerable size of the total SVC station, and
its related environmental impact.

A third option considered is a Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM). The dynamic performance
is similar to SVC but the full capability is maintained for lower grid voltages [86]. A STATCOM uses
IGBTs as power electronic switches and has theoretically black start capability when sufficient backup
power is available (e.g. battery). The control is faster than for SVC because the IGBTs are switched
several times per frequency cycle. The STATCOM station is also considerably smaller than the SVC
station. The major disadvantage is the high cost of this technology.

As a compromise between dynamic controllability and cost, a combination of switched passive elements
with a smaller STATCOM is chosen in this thesis. A maximum reactive power of 98,6 MVAr is needed
to fulfill the grid code requirement at nominal output power. The cables’ capacitive reactive power can be
used on the leading, capacitive side of Figure 5.5 by switching of the inductive compensators. The
STATCOM rating at the leading side is therefore

Q+ STATCOM = 98,6 − 2Qcable = 98,6 − 59,8 = +38,8MVAr (5-11)

Half of the reactive power on the lagging side is decided to be provided by a switched inductor. This
inductor is rated at

− 98,6 MVAr
Qind = = −49,3MVAr (5-12)
2

The other 50% is provided by the STATCOM (Q-STATCOM = -49,3 MVAr). The power factor can now
safely be varied over the total range for each power output of the wind farm and the grid code

53
requirements are fulfilled. An overview of the complete HVAC system with compensation is shown in
Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7 HVAC system overview with compensation at both cable ends

5.5.2 Frequency response

The frequency in the European grid is held as constant as possible at 50 Hz. The frequency stays at a
constant value if the electricity demand plus the losses in the grid equal the total production of electricity.
Due to the rapid variations in demand and the sometimes unpredictable output of production units,
continuous control of the frequency is needed. Wind farms must respond appropriately to frequency
changes in the grid. E.ON-netz states in its grid code that wind turbines must be able to operate in a grid
frequency band of 47,5-51,5 Hz [88]. Similar requirements were stated by Eltra in Denmark [89].

5.5.2.1 VSC HVDC

VSC HVDC decouples the onshore grid from the wind farm grid. If the frequency in the onshore grid
changes, the onshore VSC station continues to deliver active power to the grid at the new frequency. The
frequency of the wind farm grid is not influenced by the frequency change onshore. A wind farm
connected with VSC HVDC can thus continue operation within the frequency band stated in the grid
codes.

The VSC HVDC link can deliver primary frequency control as well [73]. When the onshore grid
frequency becomes higher than 50 Hz, the transmission grid operator can ask the wind farm to lower its
active power output. Tripping of turbines should be avoided, because of the time needed to restart and
reconnect them afterwards and the high inrush currents that occur during startup. An option, only possible
with VSC HVDC, is to change the power transported over the link for a limited amount of time. The
offshore converter changes its control mode from frequency control to active power control and delivers a
smaller amount of active power as asked by the TSO. A part of the generated active power will now no
longer be taken from the offshore grid and the connected wind generators. This will make the turbines
accelerate. As a consequence, the offshore grid frequency will increase as well. The energy is captured
and stored in the inertia of the turbine blades. This energy can be released to the grid at a later time. The
operation in this regime is limited in time due to the speed limits of the blades. If the blades reach their

54
maximum allowable speed, the wind turbines will start to trip due to the action of their individual speed
limiters. Nevertheless, the use of this regime allows the wind farm to participate in the frequency control
of the onshore grid in a limited way.

5.5.2.2 HVAC

HVAC does not decouple the offshore wind farm grid from the onshore grid. Frequency variations
onshore are passed directly to the offshore wind turbines. The response of the turbine units on frequency
deviations depends on the used topology (action of converter). The rotational speed of Doubly-Fed
Induction Generators is directly influenced by a frequency change in the grid. The converter can be used
to oppose this rotational speed change in a limited range. Direct-Drive Synchronous Generators are
decoupled from the grid with a full frequency converter. This converter continues operation in the
proposed frequency band. The generator is not directly influenced by a frequency change in the grid.

5.5.3 Voltage-dip ride through capability

Wind turbines are not allowed to trip during short voltage dips due to faults. This requirement became
essential due to the fact that thousands of MW wind power were at risk of being lost during faults. TSOs
therefore state voltage dip ride-through capability charts for wind turbines. Examples of E.ON-netz, NGC
and the Swedish grid operator are shown in Figure 5.8 [87], [88]. The voltage dip ride-through capability
is now investigated for the different topologies under discussion.

Figure 5.8 Voltage dip ride-through chart for NGC, E.ON-Netz and Svenska Kraftnät

5.5.3.1 Squirrel cage induction generators

This topology is only under consideration with VSC HVDC. It is impossible to fulfill the grid code
requirements with this topology and a HVAC connection. The wind turbines would immediately trip
during a voltage dip. If the onshore voltage is not reduced to zero due to the sag, the VSC HVDC station
can continue to deliver power at this lower voltage, only limited by the current rating of the power

55
electronics. If for example a voltage dip of 50% occurs during a period where the wind farm is operated at
50% of its nominal power, the VSC HVDC can double the current to 100% and continue operation.

Severe voltage dips often occur due to a fault in the grid. High short-circuit currents are related to faults
and these should be avoided in the converter valves, in order to protect the power electronic equipment.
When short-circuit currents are measured in the onshore converter station, the power electronic switches
will be blocked (no current is passed). The offshore converter continues to keep the AC voltage at
reference value. As the power transmission to the shore is stopped, the energy taken from the wind will be
stored in the rotational inertia of the turbine blades. The rotational speed increases and the wind mills trip
when their overspeed protection reaches its limits. A maximal overspeed of 15% of the nominal rotational
speed is allowed before the overspeed protection trips the wind turbines [74]. The power control of the
wind turbines is properly coordinated by the VSC HVDC station, acting as a strong voltage source
ramping up the frequency.

The rotational speed of the turbine blades is defined by the equation of motion

dω
Jω = Pmech − Pel (5-13)
dt

During the fault, no electric power (Pel) is taken from the blades and the captured power (Pmech) goes into
the rotating mass of the blades, increasing the rotational speed (and the wind farm grid frequency). J in
the above formula represents the inertia of the turbine and the coupled drive train. This inertia is mainly
dominated by the inertia of the turbine blades and the contribution of the generator and the drive train
components (gearbox, joints, …) will be neglected. For a turbine with 3 blades, J can be approximated by
the following expression [90].

0,486
J= ⋅ (2 R) 2,6 ⋅ R 2 (5-14)
9

For a 5 MW turbine diameter, 2R, of 126 m [74], the rotor inertia is 6,2.107 kg m2.

The acceleration of the blades influences the tip-speed ratio and thus the coefficient of performance as
was shown in Figure 3.3. The captured mechanical power will therefore vary as well. It is possible to
estimate the increase of the rotational speed and the wind farm frequency by taking into account this
effect. The worst case scenario is an input of a very high wind speed just below cut-off wind speed of the
turbines (~30 m/s). The turbine blades are rotating at nominal speed (12,1 rpm) before the fault occurs.
The rotational speed increases as shown in Figure 5.9. The increase of the frequency in the wind farm is
the same. The calculation of this example was performed at a wind speed of 29,9 m/s.

If the nominal frequency in the wind farm is chosen to be 50 Hz, an approximate frequency increase of 1
Hz/s is found from Figure 5.9. This is a small increment because of the large wind turbines (high J) used
in this simulation. If smaller turbines are used (e.g. 2 MW, 2R 75 m), the frequency increment adds up
to more than 5 Hz/s. Most faults are cleared within 250 ms after the occurrence of the fault and the

56
frequency increase in the wind farm stays within acceptable ranges. The extra energy stored in the
additional rotational speed of the blades can be released after the fault.

An extra measure to limit the power input from the wind is the enlargement of the pitch angle during
faults. As could be seen in Figure 3.3, an increase in pitch angle lowers the coefficient of performance
and thus the mechanical power captured by the blades. The response of the pitch angle control is
nevertheless slow.

Figure 5.9 Wind farm frequency and rotational speed response on fault (event at t = 1s)
(based on simulink wind turbine model)

5.5.3.2 Doubly-Fed Induction Generators

VSC HVDC can be used in the same way as for Squirrel Cage Induction Generators. The offshore wind
farm grid is decoupled from the onshore grid and the voltage dip onshore is not present in the wind farm.
The transfer of power is possibly blocked by the VSC HVDC during faults. The produced energy is then
temporarily stored in the inertia of the turbine blades while the frequency in the wind farm ramps up.

The voltage dip is directly sensed by the generating units for Doubly-Fed Induction Generators connected
with HVAC. The capability of the wind farm to ride-through the voltage dip will depend on the individual
generating units. Most DFIG topologies use a crowbar protection against overcurrents. An example of a
Doubly-Fed Induction Generator wind turbine is the Vestas V80. It was found by Dahlgren et al [91] that
these units disconnect when the voltage dips below 85% of the nominal value. The units reconnect after 7
seconds if no further fault occurs.

The connection with VSC HVDC brings advantages shortly after the faults as well. When a decreased
voltage is noticed by an asynchronous generator, the machine will start to demagnetize. After the fault is
cleared, the voltage is brought back to its nominal value and the machine will draw reactive current to
remagnetize again. This can cause severe reactive currents (2 to 3 times the nominal value), extending the

57
duration of the voltage dip [92]. The voltage dip ride-through capability is clearly enhanced by the VSC
HVDC link.

5.5.3.3 Direct-drive topologies

The VSC HVDC decouples the offshore grid from the onshore grid and onshore voltage dips are not
sensed in the offshore wind farm. However, the generators are now individually decoupled from the
offshore grid as well. This is true for the connection with HVAC cables as well. Direct-drive topologies
provide good voltage dip ride-through on their own. An example is the Enercon E66/70 investigated by
Dahlgren et al [91]. The units are not affected in any particular way during voltage dips and they are
quickly recovered after the voltage dip.

5.6 Losses

An economic comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC is made in the next chapter. The losses of
both cable systems are an important input in this economic comparison. They are discussed now for both
options. The power probability density function of Figure 4.3 will be used to accumulate for the variation
of wind speeds over time.

Losses in VSC HVDC transmission systems are generally considered higher than in HVAC systems. This
is mainly because of the losses in the converters. The pure line losses are nevertheless higher in HVAC
cables. For a certain cable length, the level of HVAC system losses will surpass the losses in the DC
system. The distance where the nominal HVAC losses surpass the losses in the VSC HVDC link for the
chosen 300 MW wind farm will be shown in this paragraph as well.

5.6.1 VSC HVDC

VSC HVDC losses are divided in two components: converter station losses and cable losses. The losses
for a VSC HVDC converter depend on many parameters (switching frequency, IGBT losses, snubber
circuits, etc.) and are complicated to calculate in a model. For the purpose of this thesis, it is chosen to use
the losses measured in a real project. Data are taken from the Cross Sound Cable Project (330 MW, 42
km) [18] which is similar to the cable used in this thesis (300 MW, 50 km). The data are shown in Figure
5.10. The red line shows the estimated losses before the cable was installed (ABB loss model), the blue
line depicts the actual measured losses after installation.

The converter station losses are given as a percentage of the nominal output power. Part of the converter
losses consists of ‘no-load’ losses which are independent of the power through the link. The other
converter losses depend on the power sent through the converters in a quadratic way. The power
independent ‘no-load’ losses are taken from Figure 5.10 at 0 MW inverter output power. During nominal
operation, the converter losses are 1,8% per converter for the CSC Project [18].

58
 24

20 Actual Loss
Estimated Loss
16

Losses [MW]
12

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 330
Inverter Output Power [MW]

Figure 5.10 Total transmission system losses (incl. station and cable losses)
for Cross Sound Cable Project (USA) [18]

The cable losses are Joule losses and depend on the power sent through the link. The Joule losses can be
calculated with the resistance per km value of the cables [22] and vary in a quadratic way with the power
output of the inverter. The data of Figure 5.10 were scaled to the cable length of 50 km. Only the cable
losses depend on the length of the cable.

Due to the evolution in converter technology for VSC HVDC, the converter losses were 1,6% for the
Estlink Project (300 MW, 2006) instead of the 1,8% of the Cross Sound Cable Project (2002) [30]. This
evolution was taken into account in the scaling of the VSC HVDC losses. The resulting losses for the 50
km wind farm cable with nominal wind farm power of 300 MW are shown in Figure 5.11. The red curve
of Figure 5.11 is used for the 300 MW wind farm under consideration in this thesis.

Figure 5.11 VSC HVDC losses for 300 MW offshore wind farm (cable length = 50 km)

59
5.6.2 HVAC
The line losses in HVAC cables consist of Joule losses in the copper conductors, shield losses, armor
losses and dielectric losses. The dielectric losses are neglected in the following discussion.

5.6.2.1 Conductor losses in AC 3-core cables

The most important component of the line losses are the Joule losses in the conductors. They are
calculated as

L
2
PJoule = 3 Rcable ⋅ I cable dx (5-15)
0

The current in a HVAC cable varies throughout the entire length of the cable. The total current consists of
an active and a reactive component.

2 2
I cable = I active + I reactive (5-16)

The active current per cable (2 in parallel) depends on the power output of the wind farm.

Pwf
I active = (5-17)
2 3U cable

The shunt capacitance of the cable causes reactive current. Reactive compensation is added according to
section 5.5.1.2. The current distribution in the cables is calculated with the formulas given in section
5.3.2. The reactive current (Ireac) and total current (Icable) distribution in the cables are shown in Figure
5.12 and Figure 5.13 respectively. The reactive current is dominant in the total current during periods of
low wind farm output power (low wind speed). It is therefore chosen to use only one cable during these
periods to minimize the losses in the total system. The second cable is optimally switched on when the
wind farm produces more than 9% of its nominal output power. A hysteresis switch sheme can be used to
avoid numerous switching operations. The second cable can be switched on at 11% of the nominal power
and switched off at 7% for example.

60
 Figure 5.12 Reactive current distribution in the chosen 3-core HVAC cable (Pwf = 0 MW)

Figure 5.13 Estimated current distribution in HVAC cable 1 (left) and 2 (right)

Rcable is calculated taking into account temperature, skin and proximity effect.

5.6.2.1.1 Temperature effect

The resistance of copper cables varies with the temperature of the conductor following

R DC = R DC , 20°C (1 + α (θ − 20 )) (5-18)

with the temperature coefficient of the resistivity of copper and the operating temperature of the
conductor. A per phase DC resistance of 0,0366 /km at 20°C is given in [79] for the chosen cables. The
temperature of the conductor depends on the steady-state current through the cable. It is assumed that the
surrounding temperature of the sea bed is 10°C. Data from [79] are used to calculate the temperature of
the conductor as a function of the current through the cable. The result is shown in Figure 5.14. When the
cable is fully loaded, the conductor temperature rises to around 80°C.

61
 Figure 5.14 Conductor temperature as function of current through cable

To know the losses during AC operation, the AC resistance should be calculated. This is done by taking
the skin effect (ys) and proximity effect (yp) into account.

R AC = R DC (1 + y s + y p ) (5-19)

5.6.2.1.2 Skin effect

If a cable is conducting high alternating currents, the distribution of current is not evenly dispersed
throughout the cross section. The center portion of the conductor experiences a higher magnetic flux due
to surrounding current than portions at the outside of the conductor. This forces the current to redistribute
to the outside portions of the conductor because of a greater back-emf in the conductor center. Due to this
redistribution, the cross section is not used evenly and the experienced resistance of the cable is higher
than for DC currents. The skin effect factor is calculated following IEC 60287 [93]. The values given are
valid for a conductor temperature of 20°C and vary slightly with temperature.

4
xs
ys = 4
= 0,0585 (5-20)
0,8 ⋅ x s + 192

with

2 8 ⋅ π ⋅ f grid ⋅ 10 −7
xs = = 3,433 (5-21)
R DC

5.6.2.1.3 Proximity effect

The proximity effect is related to the interaction of conductors being close to each other. When the
current in two conductors flows in the same direction, the current is repelled to the outside. The currents
in two conductors with currents in opposite directions are attracted to each other. This effect gives rise to
a redistribution of the current and augments the experienced resistance of the cable. The proximity effect

62
factor is calculated following IEC 60287 [93]. The values given are valid for a conductor temperature of
20°C and vary slightly with temperature.

4 2 2
xp d d 1,18
yp = ⋅ c ⋅ 0,312 ⋅ c + = 0,0537 (5-22)
4 4
0,8 x p + 192 s s xp
4
+ 0,27
0,8 x p + 192

with
−7
x p = 8 ⋅ π ⋅ f ⋅ 10
2
= 3,433 (5-23)
R DC

d c is the conductor diameter in mm = 25,23 mm

s is the spacing between conductor centres in mm = 2dc (estimated)

Because of the relation between the current and the conductor temperature, the resistance of the HVAC
cable is plotted as a function of current as well. The result is shown in Figure 5.15.

Figure 5.15 Cable resistance as a function of current through cable

An extra increase in resistance can be justified due to the stranded conductors. They are helicoidally
bonded together which increases the length of the conductor by +2%. This effect is neglected.

5.6.2.2 Shield and armor losses

The currents in the conductors induce currents in the metallic shields and the armor. These currents lead
to extra losses due to the resistance of the shields and the armor. They are commonly represented as an
increase in cable resistance

Rcable ,eff = Rcable (1 + λ shield + λ armor ) (5-24)

63
This increase in resistance depends on many factors such as distance between different phases,
temperature of the cable and the material properties of shields, armor and insulation. Shield and armor
losses are stated to be possibly up to 33% and 50% respectively of the conductor losses in [5] and the
high variations in shield losses (1,0-123,0% of PJoule) depending on the properties of the cables are
discussed in [94] as well. The calculation of this increment is based on IEC 60287 [93] in this thesis. For
the shield losses holds

RS 1,5
λ shield = 2
(5-25)
Rcable R
1+ S
X

RS represents the resistance of the shield [ /m]. This value depends on the resistivity of the shield
material (copper in this case), the cross section and the temperature of the shield. The temperature of the
shields depends on the heat dissipated in the conductors and the thermal resistivity of the insulation
(XLPE). This temperature value is calculated in a thermal analysis of the cable, which would lead too far
for the purpose of this thesis. It is therefore assumed that the shield temperature is constant at 40°C. X
depends on the geometry of the cable. Depending on the current through the cable, λshield varies between

0,28 and 0,35.

The increment for the armor losses is given by

RA 1
λ armor = 1,23 2
(5-26)
Rcable 2,77 R A 10 6
1+
ω

The armor material is steel, which has a negative effect on the armor losses due to its magnetic
characteristics and relatively high resistance. Once again RA depends on the armor temperature, which is
the result of a thermal analysis. It is assumed here that the armor temperature is equal to 20°C. The armor
consists of steel wires bonded around the three phases. The thickness of the wires is assumed to be 1 mm
and they are placed close against each other. λ armor varies between 0,56 and 0,7.

5.6.2.3 Losses in transformers and compensation coils

In order to find the total losses in the HVAC system, the losses in the transformers and the passive
compensators are incorporated. Large power transformers usually have efficiencies around 99,8% [95].
The accumulated losses for transformers and compensation coils are linearly approximated to 1,2% for
nominal load with a no-load value of 0,4% in [80]. The system under study in [80] is a 3-core cable
system connecting a 500 MW wind farm situated 100 km from shore and with a line voltage of 245 kV.
This system differs significantly from the system under study in this thesis. The reactive currents for a
100 km cable at 245 kV are higher and the compensators are of higher ratings. The losses for transformers
and compensators are assumed to be 0,8% of the nominal power of the transmission system with 1/3 of

64
this value being no-load losses.

5.6.2.4 Losses in STATCOM

The STATCOM consists of a reactive compensator connected to the grid via a Voltage Source Converter.
The losses in a STATCOM station are in the same range as those for a VSC HVDC substation (1,6%-
1,8% of Pnom during nominal operation). The compensation equipment is nevertheless dimensioned in
such way that the STATCOM is not needed (switched off) for a power factor equal to 1. Only for the
control of power factors differing from unity, the STATCOM is switched on. It depends on the grid
conditions (e.g. present voltage level) in the neighborhood of the Point of Common Coupling which
power factor is demanded by the TSO. It is assumed in this thesis that the dominantly demanded power
factor is equal to 1 and the losses of the STATCOM are therefore omitted in the economic analysis. They
can easely be incorporated if case-specific data on which power factor is demanded by the TSO is
inserted. The total losses of the HVAC transmission system (50 km) are shown in Figure 5.16 as a
function of the wind farm power output.

Figure 5.16 HVAC transmission system losses (300 MW, 50 km)

Figure 5.11 for the VSC HVDC connection is compared with Figure 5.16 for the HVAC option. The
losses in the VSC HVDC system are higher over the total power range. Taking into account the wind
speed probability distribution, and the related power probability distribution, the annual energy loss can
be calculated for both technologies.

The results of this calculation are shown for a variable speed wind farm in Table 5-2. The annual energy
losses for both technologies are compared with the annual energy output of a variable speed wind farm
(Table 4-1, drive train losses not included) to result in an annual transmission system loss percentage

65
 l% =
( N
i
)
Ploss ,i ⋅ pi ⋅ h
(5-27)
( N
i
Pgen,i ⋅ p )⋅ h
i

Ploss ,i represents the transmission losses at wind speed I, Pgen,i is the power generated by the wind farm at

wind speed I, N is the number of wind speeds considered in the model, p i is the probability to have wind

speed I, h is the number of hours in a year. The availability of the wind farm is assumed to be 100% in the
made calculations.

For the VSC HVDC option 4,45% of the annual produced energy (APE) is lost in the transmission
system, whereas this is only 3,31% for the HVAC system.

5.6.3 Influence of length of transmission cable

The losses for the VSC HVDC and HVAC link were investigated so far for a fixed cable length of 50 km.
l% is shown in Figure 5.17 for cable lengths upto 130 km ( critical length for the HVAC option). The
break-even distance for the losses of VSC HVDC and HVAC is slightly below 80 km for the 300 MW
wind farm studied in this thesis.

Figure 5.17 Loss percentage for VSC HVDC and HVAC as function of cable length
(Pwf = 300 MW)

66
 Average Average
Wind Farm Probability Energy Loss Energy Loss
Hours/year HVAC VSC HVDC
Power range [%] [%] HVAC [MWh] HVDC [MWh]
Losses [MW] Losses [MW]
0% 7,99% 699,5 0 0 0 0
0-10% 19,45% 1 704,0 0,992 1 690 3,651 6 220
10-20% 11,13% 975,2 1,343 1 310 3,942 3 840
20-30% 8,85% 774,8 1,826 1 410 4,359 3 380
30-40% 6,93% 607,1 2,479 1 500 4,903 2 980
40-50% 5,61% 491,4 3,306 1 620 5,573 2 740
50-60% 4,56% 407,5 4,315 1 760 6,370 2 600
60-70% 3,92% 343,7 5,514 1 890 7,293 2 510
70-80% 3,35% 293,5 6,914 2 030 8,343 2 450

offshore wind farm (cable length = 50 km)

80-90% 2,89% 253,1 8,528 2 160 9,519 2 410
90-100% 25,23% 2 210,1 11,473 25 400 11,586 25 600
TOTAL 100,00% 8 760,0 40 740 54 720

Table 5-2 Loss comparison between HVAC and VSC HVDC as transmission option for a 300 MW

67
5.7 Conclusion

The technical aspects of VSC HVDC and HVAC are compared in this chapter. The choice of a HVDC
Light® module for the connection of a proposed offshore wind farm is straight forward, based on the
available standard modules. More parameters are open in the dimensioning of a HVAC system. Each
wind farm project needs a proper dimensioning and the outcome depends on many case-specific
parameters. A 300 MW wind farm is proposed as a relevant example in this thesis. The cable length is
chosen at 50 km. A M5 HVDC Light® is chosen as an appropriate module for this wind farm. Two
parallel 3-core HVAC cables rated at 150 kV are chosen for the HVAC option. The unavoidable
compensation equipment for the AC cables is dimensioned based on grid code requirements in the UK
and calculations on the reactive power production of the cables.

The proposed VSC HVDC system is of great help in fulfilling the grid code requirements on power factor
control, frequency response and voltage dip ride-through. Additional equipment is needed for a HVAC
system to fulfill the grid code requirement on power factor control. This comes at additional cost as will
be discussed in the following chapter. The frequency response and voltage dip ride-through of the wind
farm depends on the used wind turbine topologies. VSC HVDC shows nevertheless important advantages
over HVAC in these fields.

The losses of the VSC HVDC link in this thesis are based on the losses in the Cross Sound Cable Project.
A loss calculation is performed to approximate the losses of the HVAC cables. For a wind farm situated
at 50 km from the Point of Common Coupling, the losses in the VSC HVDC link (4,45% of APE) are
found to be considerably higher than in the HVAC system (3,31% of APE) mainly due to the losses in the
converter stations. The influence of the cable length is investigated. The pure line losses per km are found
to be higher in the HVAC cables than in the HVDC cables. This results in an approximate break-even
distance for the losses of 80 km.

68
6 ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF VSC HVDC AND HVAC FOR THE
CONNECTION OF OFFSHORE WIND FARMS

6.1 Introduction

The technical and operational aspects of the chosen offshore wind farm are discussed in the previous
chapters. Two possibilities are considered for the transmission system between the offshore wind farm
and the onshore grid: VSC HVDC and HVAC. The two options are compared on a technical basis. VSC
HVDC shows technical supremacy over the HVAC option on many aspects important for the connection
of offshore wind farms but has higher losses as well. Nevertheless, the choice for a technology is
normally based on an economic comparison. The results of the economic comparison are discussed in this
chapters.

The methodology used for the economic comparison is a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. The result
of this calculation is the difference between the Net Present Values (NPV) of the compared technologies.
A DCF analysis incorporates the initial investment costs and the discounted annual costs and revenues for
both technologies. A tool is developed in MS Excel to perform the economic comparison and to allow for
quick variation of input parameters.

An important question in the economic comparison is: who is deciding on the investment and what are the
investors objectives? This thesis investigates two different scenarios. In a first comparison (Scenario 1)
both VSC HVDC and HVAC are only used for the purpose of transmitting electricity. The investor is
assumed to be another party than the wind farm investor and has no benefits of possible wind farm
optimization. The wind farm is seen as a black box. Scenario 2 describes the situation in which the wind
farm developer and the investor for the transmission cable are the same party. The investment for wind
farm and transmission system is now seen as one project and is economically optimized as such. Possible
advantages of using VSC HVDC for the wind farm are incorporated in the economic analysis.

The investment costs for both transmission systems are discussed in section 6.2. The annual costs used in
the first comparison are the losses and the maintenance costs of the transmission system (6.3). The results
and conclusions of the DCF for scenario 1 are discussed in section 6.4. The differences in investment
costs for the wind turbine topologies under study are described in section 6.5. The differences in energy
output and annual maintenance costs are taken into account (6.6). The discounted cash flow for scenario 2
is shown and discussed in section 6.7. A VSC HVDC link with a wind farm with directly connected
SCIGs is compared with a HVAC link with DFIGs, DDPMSGs or GPMSGs.

The cost data used must be put in the right perspective. Data from 2002 to 2008 have been found and
uncertainty exists on their correctness nowadays. The economic comparison is performed in Euro. Some
data were found in other currencies (American Dollar, Canadian Dollar, British Pound) and had to be
converted to Euro. There was a high variability on these currency rates during the last years. The copper

69
price varied significantly during the last years and cable prices were therefore variable as well. It is
proposed to the reader to take the data mentioned in this comparison as indicative.

6.2 Transmission system investment cost

6.2.1 VSC HVDC

The cost of a VSC HVDC connection to an offshore wind farm is broken down into the following
components: substation cost, onshore land use, DC cable cost and offshore rig. The costs attained in this
paragraph refer to the M5 module, chosen in the previous chapter for the 300 MW wind farm.

Several sources were used to attain accurate data. A study of VSC HVDC as an alternative for the
Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement (2005) is described in [98]. The VSC HVDC studied, is a
double M5 module for a connection of 2 x 300 MW. A study for the Cape Wind Project (2003) compares
a VSC HVDC option with a HVAC cable [99]. The VSC HVDC studied in [99] is rated at 300 MW. A
study held by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. Is described in [100]. A study for the grid reinforcement of North
Auckland with a M5 HVDC Light® is described in [101]. A similar study was conducted for the
Middletown-Norwalk Transmission Project in USA [102]. A study on the feasibility of VSC HVDC in
Randstad is described in [103]. Furthermore, prices of comparable finished projects such as Murraylink
(220 MW for 176 km land cable, 2002), Cross Sound Cable (330 MW for 40 km submarine cable, 2002)
and Estlink (350 MW for 210 km submarine cable, 2006) and planned projects such as the Borkum 2 link
[104] (420 MW for 200 km land/submarine cable, 2009) are used as a guideline.

6.2.1.1 Substation cost

As discussed before, a substation for VSC HVDC is more complicated than a HVAC substation. The
most important components are the power electronic converter, the phase reactor, AC harmonic filters, a
transformer and switchgear whereas a HVAC substation is mainly a transformer with the necessary
switchgear. Few authors report explicitly on the cost of converter substations for VSC HVDC. The prices
are often incorporated in larger contracts, depend from project to project and are often confidential. It is
neither always clear if the prices refer to HVDC Light® (ABB) or HVDC Plus (Siemens). The substation
cost depends on the power rating of the converter and is commonly expressed in €/kW.

A first reference on substation cost is found in [98]. The author states a cost of 177,72 €/kW for the
substation (2005). The study for the Cape Wind Project [99] states a cost of 151,87 €/kW for the
substation (2003). A substation cost of 127,62 €/kW is used in [100] (2002). For the M5 module, rated at
376 MVA, this would lead to a substation cost of about 48,000,000 – 66,800,000 €/converter.

Three references are used in which ABB is mentioned as the source [101],[102],[103]. The converter
prices stated in these references vary between 43 and 50 M€ per converter station. The first 2 references
are given for a M5 module HVDC Light® whereas the highest price is found for an 1100 MW M9
module. These references are considered as more relevant and realistic.

70
For finished projects, only the total cost of the project (cable and installation included) is available on
public domain. The Estlink cost 110 M€ for a total length of 210 km DC cable [105]. The Murraylink cost
165 M$ [100] (165 M€ 2002) and the Cross Sound Cable cost 130 M$ (130 M€ 2002). The data of the
Estlink is more relevant because it is a more recent figure. Nevertheless, it has to be noticed that the
converter used in Estlink is a 2-level converter whereas more complicated (more IGBTs) 3-level
converters were used in Murraylink and Cross Sound Cable. An interesting project to compare with is the
German 420 MW wind farm near Borkum 2. The total project cost is estimated at 260 M€ of which half is
assumed to comprise converter cost and offshore installation [104].

As a compromise between the found data, a converter cost of 45 000 000 €/converter station is assumed
in this thesis. The two converters thus need a total investment of 90 000 000 €.

6.2.1.2 Onshore land use

The onshore converter station land use is standardized and can be found in [22]. For the M5 module, the
needed land is 80x25 m2. A drawing of both the onshore and offshore station is shown in Figure 6.1. The
three voluminous cylindrical phase reactors are visible in the center. Other voluminous components are
the converter stacks (white blocks), the switchgear and transformer. Cooling devices are placed outside.
The cost of land is country and region dependent. It is nevertheless a minor cost in the whole project and
is estimated at 125 000 € for this comparison.

Figure 6.1 VSC HVDC M5 substation: onshore (left) and offshore (right) station

6.2.1.3 DC cable cost

A cable cost of 439 600 €/km was stated in 2005 by [98] and 429 000 €/km was reported by [99] in 2003.
Both reported costs include the two cables needed for the bipolar DC cable pair. A cable cost for DC land
cables of 290 000 €/km is stated by [102] in 2004. For a 50 km cable, a purchase cost of around 22 000
000 € could be expected in 2005. The price of copper cables is nowadays higher than a few years ago due
to the increase in value of copper. The evolution of the copper price on international metal markets is

71
shown in Figure 6.2. The red boxes show the variations during various years used in the economic
analysis and an average value is deducted. Between 2005 and 2008, the copper price has more than
doubled (+110%). The 2008 DC cable price is estimated at 600 000 €/km adding up to a total cable cost
of 30 000 000 € for the 50 km HVDC cable pair.

Figure 6.2 Relative evolution of copper price 2002 – 2008

The installation cost of the DC cables has to be added to the investment cost of the transmission system.
Both cables are installed in one boat run and buried 1 m deep in the seabed to protect them from the
submarine environment. Only [99] reports on installation cost for DC cables. An installation cost of 215
000 €/km is used, leading to a total installation cost of 10 750 000 €.

6.2.1.4 Offshore rig

An offshore platform is necessary to install the M5 converter station offshore. The cost of a top site
structure offshore is unclear. The experience for offshore wind farms is limited and platform building
companies are reluctant to provide cost data because they vary strongly from situation to situation. The
cost of an offshore installation platform is dependent on the depth of the water and the weight and volume
of the installation. It will be expressed in €/m3 here. The size of the offshore substation is 30x40x20 m3 as
provided by ABB in [106]. It is reported in [99] that the additional cost for a VSC HVDC rig compared to
a HVAC substation rig is 8,600,000 €. Compared to a HVAC offshore substation a HVDC offshore
station is about 85% larger [82]. This gives a platform cost of 792,12 €/m3 or 19 000 000 € for the needed
total volume. This number is uncertain and after communication with ABB, it is decided to use 1 000
€/m3 or 24 000 000 €.

6.2.2 HVAC
The investment cost of HVAC can be calculated in the same way as for VSC HVDC. The cost is broken
down in substation cost, onshore land use, AC cable cost and offshore rig cost. For HVAC systems an
extra cost component has to be taken into account. Reactive compensation of the cable is taken as an
absolute requirement to bring the system online (grid code). The cost of this reactive compensation will

72
be included in the HVAC investment cost.

The study for the Cape Wind Project [99] reports on HVAC and these data are used. A comparison of
different HVAC cables is made in a study by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2006) and
described in [107]. The Danish Altener Project by Seawind also reports on HVAC cost data [108].

6.2.2.1 Substation cost

The substation cost consists of electrical equipment needed to transform the voltage from the transmission
cable level (150 kV) to the wind farm grid level (33 kV) offshore and to the transmission grid level (400
kV) onshore. Transformer and switchgear are the main components. A busbar and additional control and
instrumentation equipment are assumed to be present as well.

The Cape Wind Study reports a cost of $12 000 000 (12 M€ 2002) for the electrical equipment in an AC
substation rated at 420 MW. The Danish Altener Study reports 15 000 000 € for an offshore AC
substation (rig included) rated at 240 MW. The cost of a transformer, which is an important cost in a
HVAC substation, is found to be approximately 12 000 €/MW in [107]. This leads to an offshore
transformer cost of almost 4 000 000 € for the proposed wind farm in this thesis. The total substation cost
is assumed at 10 000 000 €. Aggregated for both substations, this results in an investment cost of 20 000
000 €.

6.2.2.2 Onshore land use

The onshore land use is more limited for an AC substation than for a HVDC substation. The cost of
onshore land use is estimated at 50 000 € but is a minor cost in the total investment cost.

6.2.2.3 Cable cost

High voltage submarine AC cables are mainly provided by three companies in Europe: ABB, Nexans and
Prysmian. Prices often differ from company to company and from project to project.

The Cape Wind Study mentions an AC cable cost of 390 000 €/km in 2002 for a 3-core cable with 800
mm2 as conductor cross section (ABB and Prysmian (former Pirelli) proposal for Horshoe Shoal wind
farm). A cable cost of 550 000 €/km can be derived from Nexans’ proposal for the Sheringham Shoal
wind farm [117]. In 2006, a cable cost is reported between 620 000 €/km and 710 000 €/km depending on
the manufacturer [107]. The steep rise in cable cost is due to the high increase in copper price during the
last years. The prices of 2006 are more relevant than the prices of 2003. Since 2006, the copper price has
increased by 20% as can be seen in Figure 6.2. The impact of the copper price on the cable cost is higher
for AC cables than for DC cables because the relative amount of copper is higher. The 2008 HVAC cable
price is estimated at 750 000 €/km or 37 500 000 € per cable. For the two parallel cables this means
75 000 000 €.

The cable installation cost is higher for AC cables than for DC cables. For cables as long as 50 km, one

73
boat run per cable is necessary. The handling and unrolling of the cable is more complicated because of
the higher cross section compared to DC cables. Extra costs can be expected as well due to the complex
jointing of the three phases in a submarine environment. An installation cost of 170 000 €/km is reported
by [99] leading to a total installation cost for 2 AC cables of 17 000 000 €.

6.2.2.4 Offshore rig

A typical offshore wind farm connected to the grid by HVAC is the Horns Rev Danish wind farm [82].
The offshore substation used there has extra components such as a helicopter pad, control and
instrumentation equipment, man over board boat and an emergency diesel generator inclusive 2 x 50
tonnes of diesel. As an example the size of the offshore substation of the Horns Rev (160 MW, Appendix
D) wind farm is 20x28x15 m3. This is assumed to be somewhat higher for a 300 MW wind farm
(35x25x15 m3). Given the cost of 1000 €/m3 for an offshore platform used for the VSC HVDC platform,
the HVAC offshore rig cost is estimated at 13 125 000 €.

6.2.2.5 Reactive compensation

The need for reactive compensation of the HVAC cable system was discussed in 5.5.1.2. It was chosen to
use individual compensating shunt coils for the 4 cables. Furthermore, to fulfill the grid code
requirements, an extra inductive compensator is installed plus a STATCOM. The prices of compensation
equipment are not readily available. They are typically expressed in €/MVAr.

The cost of a STATCOM is based on the dynamic reactive power range

Qdyn , STATCOM = ∆QSTATCOM = Q+ , STATCOM − Q− , STATCOM (6-1)

For the STATCOM used in this thesis, a dynamic range of ~90 MVAr is found. The operational
experience with STATCOM is limited so far. An existing project at Austin, Texas (Holly STATCOM)
cost 11 726 000 € [109]. The dynamic range of this STATCOM is 190 MVAr (+95/-95 MVAr) leading to
a STATCOM cost of 62 000 €/MVAr. A STATCOM cost of 70 000 €/MVAr is stated by [110]. An
average value of 66 000 €/MVAr is used in this thesis. This results in a STATCOM cost of 5 940 000 €.

The cost of compensation coils is not found in public domain. Compensation coils are voluminous
apparatus and a circuit breaker is needed for their connection to the system. Their specific installation
offshore adds up to the cost. A cost of 10 000 €/MVAr is estimated in this thesis. A total of ~170 MVAr
of inductive compensators is needed for the wind farm under consideration. This leads to a compensation
cost of 1 730 000 €.

The total cost for compensation equipment is estimated at 7 870 000 €.

6.2.3 Comparison of investment cost

The used data are compared in Figure 6.3. The dominant cost component for VSC HVDC is the converter
stations whereas it is the cable cost for HVAC. VSC HVDC is more expensive to purchase compared to

74
HVAC with a total investment difference around 22 000 000 € based on the data used in this thesis. The
VSC HVDC costs 154 875 000 € compared to a total cost of 132 845 000 € for the HVAC connection.
180,0

160,0

140,0

120,0
Cost [M€]

100,0
HVDC Light
HVAC
80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0
Substation Cables Cable installation Reac Comp Rig & Land Total

Figure 6.3 Investment cost comparison: VSC HVDC versus HVAC (300 MW, 50 km)

6.3 Annual costs

6.3.1 Losses in the transmission system to shore

The system losses for both VSC HVDC and HVAC were discussed in 5.6. The values of Table 5-2 are
used in the economic comparison. The annual energy losses are given in MWh. To give a monetary value
to these losses in the discounted cash flow, a cost of energy in €/MWh is needed.

The following reasoning is used in this thesis. Losses need to be generated additionally to the market
demand. The cost to produce the energy of the losses is therefore considered as the production cost
(€/MWh) of the marginal energy unit in the power exchange market. This is simply the electricity price
on the power exchange. The electricity price on the power exchanges is however not a fixed value. It
varies during the day and during the year. It depends on decisions of market players on the exchange,
weather conditions, prices of primary energy resources, country, …. A value of 40 €/MWh is used in this
thesis as a base value. No account is given to possible extra subsidies for renewable energy sources that
can be in effect, and add considerably to the profitability of the wind farm. The sensitivity of the final
result upon variation of this parameter is therefore discussed in the next chapter.

6.3.2 Maintenance costs of the transmission system

The annual maintenance cost for VSC HVDC is estimated at 0,5% of the capital cost of the components
[98]. The onshore land use and converter platform are not included in this capital cost. This leads to an
annual maintenance cost of 650 000 €. The complexity of the converter stations gives rise to this high
cost. Enough spare components are required for the stations to keep their reliability high enough.

The lifetime maintenance cost for the HVAC equipment in the substations is estimated at 15% of the
investment cost [96],[97]. This results in an annual maintenance cost of 150 000 € for a wind farm with a
lifetime of 20 years. Extra maintenance is needed for the STATCOM onshore. The STATCOM is a
similar VSC installation as the ones used in the VSC HVDC stations. The rating is nevertheless smaller

75
and the STATCOM is situated onshore. The STATCOM maintenance is estimated at 50 000 € per year
[95].

6.4 Discounted Cash Flow analysis – Scenario 1

A Discounted Cash Flow analysis is shown in this paragraph for the first scenario. The wind farm is seen
as a black box, identical for both compared transmission options, and is not taken into account in the
DCF. The result is shown in Table 6-1.

(DCF analysis in €) Year 0 Year 1 Years 1-20

Losses 0,00 -559 276,75 -559 276,75
Maintenance cost 0,00 -450 000,00 -450 000,00
EBITDA 0,00 -1 009 276,75 -1 009 276,75
Depreciation 0,00 1 101 500,00 1 101 500,00
Benefit before taxation 0,00 -2 110 776,75 -2 110 776,75
Taxation (40%) 0,00 -844 310,70 -844 310,70
Benefit after taxation 0,00 -1 266 466,05 -1 266 466,05
Depreciation 0,00 1 101 500,00 1 101 500,00
Net investment -22 030 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net cash flow -22 030 000,00 -164 966,05 -164 966,05
Discounted cash flow -22 030 000,00 -157 110,53 -2 055 841,64
TOTAL -24 085 841,64
Table 6-1 Discounted Cash Flow VSC HVDC versus HVAC
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

The choice for HVAC is 24 000 000 € less expensive than the choice for VSC HVDC on a lifetime basis.
The difference is mainly due to the difference in investment costs. The losses and maintenance costs are
higher for the VSC HVDC system as well resulting in an annual loss.

6.5 Wind farm investment costs

Four different wind turbine topologies are chosen to compare in chapter 3. The use of VSC HVDC allows
to implement a simpler wind farm or optimize the wind farm topology. Suggestions for simplification or
optimization are given for eacht of the discussed topologies. It is chosen here to use the combination of
VSC HVDC with directly connected SCIGs. The operation of the wind farm grid at variable frequency
allows to run the wind turbines at variable speed. This topology is compared with HVAC and the standard
variable-speed topologies (DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG).

The chosen topologies are now incorporated in the financial analysis. The use of the discounted cash flow
method avoids the need for the total investment cost of the wind farm. Only the differences between the
topologies are needed in the calculation. The following assumptions are made. The offshore wind farm
collection grid is assumed to be the same for each topology. The towers, foundations, nacelles and rotor
blades are considered equal as well. The differences in investment costs, needed for the DCF, are
assumed to be present only in the drive train. Only three components of this drive train have been studied
further: the gearbox, the generator and the converter. The wind turbine units under consideration are rated

76
at 5 MW each. Accurate cost data on these three components are not readily available in public domain.
The most accurate data are found for DFIG wind turbines, because this is the only topology built offshore
in a large scale wind farm so far. The assumed investment cost values in the following paragraphs include
the costs for installation of the components in an offshore environment. Every extra unit of mass or
volume that needs to be installed offshore comes at a high cost. To give the reader an idea of the
proportions of the cost components for a DFIG offshore wind turbine, Figure 6.4 has been derived from
several references [54],[46].

Figure 6.4 Cost breakdown for 5MW DFIG offshore wind turbine

6.5.1 Generator cost

Information on cost of generators was found in [64] for the DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG topologies.
Nevertheless, only the material and construction cost is taken into account in [64]. The purchase cost and
installation cost were not reported. The ratios between the different generator costs found by [64] are as
follows. If the DFIG generator cost is equal to 1, then the cost for the GPMSG generator is 1,5 and the
cost for the DDPMSG generator is 5. The cost for a DFIG 5MW generator is assumed to be around
400 000 € (80 €/kW) [74],[111]. The generator costs for DDPMSG and GPMSG are assumed at 2 000
000 € (400 €/kW) and 600 000 € (120 €/kW) respectively, given the ratios of [64]. The cost of a squirrel-
cage induction generator is found to be 250 000 € (50 €/kW) in [111].

6.5.2 Gearbox cost

The cost of a 3MW three-stage and single-stage gearbox is given by [64]. For a three-stage gearbox a cost
of 367 000 € (73,33 €/kW) is assumed for the 5 MW turbines in this thesis, whereas 200 000 € (40 €/kW)
is used for the single stage gearbox in the GPMSG.

6.5.3 Converter cost

The cost of a power electronic converter is derived from [64] as well. 40 000 €/MW is assumed in this
thesis. A DFIG topology is assumed to use a converter rated at 30% of the total turbine power rating. This
gives a converter cost of 60 000 €. A converter cost of 200 000 € is used for the direct-drive topologies.
The different investment costs for a 5 MW turbine are summarized in Table 6-2. The wind farm
investment costs of DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG are used for the HVAC option. The investment cost
for the SCIG is used in combination with VSC HVDC as was discussed in chapter 5.

77
 (cost in k€) SCIG DFIG DDPMSG GPMSG

Generator 250,0 400,0 2 000,0 600,0

Gearbox 366,7 366,7 0,0 200,0
Converter 0,0 60,0 200,0 200,0
TOTAL 616,7 826,7 2 200,0 1 000,0
Table 6-2 Investment costs for different wind farm topologies
6.6 Annual costs and revenues of an offshore wind farm

6.6.1 Energy output of wind farm

The energy output of the wind farms based on the different topologies depends on the drive train
efficiencies given in Table 4-2. The respective annual energy outputs were given in Table 4-3. The same
value for the cost of energy as was used for the losses in the transmission system (40 €/MWh) is used to
monetize the differences in energy output. No account is given to possible governmental support for
green energy.

6.6.2 Annual maintenance cost wind farm

The different topologies are discussed in chapter 3. An important difference between the topologies is the
need for maintenance. Maintenance is expensive for wind farms situated several kilometers from shore. A
boat is commonly used to access the wind farm. This access might be limited due to harsh weather
conditions during certain periods of the year. A helicopter can then be used to access the wind turbines
(e.g. Horns Rev). However this is again at elevated cost.

The experience for offshore wind farms is limited, with only a few relevant projects operational for
several years. Those relevant projects (e.g. Horns Rev) are based on a DFIG topology. The annual
maintenance demand of the present generation of DFIG offshore wind turbines is in the order of 40 to 80
hours [47]. The gearbox requires the major part of the maintenance. Large amounts of lubricant are
needed in the nacelle. The generator of a DFIG turbine requires maintenance too. The brushes of the rotor
connection for example need at least 2 refurbishments a year due to wear. It is assumed that the annual
maintenance cost for a wind turbine increases linear with distance from shore. Several reports and
publications give estimations for the annual maintenance cost of a DFIG wind turbine (e.g.
[46],[81],[118]-[121]). The used data are plotted in Figure 6.5 as black dots. A linear regression is made
through the data found in the references to find the maintenance cost as a function of distance from shore.
The result of this linear approximation is shown in blue. The costs for onshore maintenance are mainly
for people, time and components. The per km increase for offshore maintenance is due to the needed boat
or helicopter hours and the special training for the maintenance workers.

78
 250

Annual Cost [k€] 200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from shore [km]

Figure 6.5 Annual maintenance cost for 5 MW DFIG wind turbine

(black dots = data; blue line = linear regression)

There is no relevant experience for other topologies offshore. Some qualitative information was found for
onshore installations [52]. The generators of the other topologies are almost maintenance free compared
to the DFIG topology [122]. The gearbox is still present in the SCIG (three-stage) and GPMSG topology
(single-stage). An educated assumption is made on the ratio between the maintenance cost for the other
topologies and the maintenance cost for a DFIG wind turbine. The maintenance cost for a SCIG topology
is assumed to be 70% of the cost for DFIG, whereas 30% and 50% are used for DDPMSG and GPMSG
respectively. The wind farm is assumed at 50 km from shore and 60 turbines rated at 5 MW are installed.

6.7 Discounted Cash Flow analysis – Scenario 2

The discounted cash flow calculation of 6.4 showed the comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC
with the wind farm considered as a black box. The choice for VSC HVDC is found to cost ~24 M€ more
than the HVAC option. This result is valid if the advantages VSC HVDC can bring to a wind farm
(chapter 3) are not relevant for the investor of the transmission link.

If the investor of the wind farm is the same party as the investor of the transmission system, an economic
optimum for the total solution is looked for. The advantages of VSC HVDC for the SCIG topology
(3.4.1) are monetized in this thesis. The incorporation of the wind farm topology improvements for DFIG
and direct-drive topologies is proposed as future work. The discounted cash flow calculations below will
therefore discuss the, for this thesis relevant, comparison between VSC HVDC with SCIG wind turbines
and HVAC with DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG. The results are shown in Table 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5.

79
6.7.1 VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DFIG
(DCF analysis in €) Year 0 Year 1 Years 1-20
Energy output (wind farm) 0,00 945 756,45 945 756,45
Maintenance (wind farm) 0,00 2 996 482,36 2 996 482,36
Losses (cable) 0,00 -561 058,68 -561 058,68
Maintenance (cable) 0,00 -450 000,00 -450 000,00
EBITDA 0,00 2 931 180,13 2 931 180,13
Depreciation 0,00 471 500,00 471 500,00
Benefit before taxation 0,00 2 459 680,13 2 459 680,13
Taxation (40%) 0,00 983 872,05 983 872,05
Benefit after taxation 0,00 1 475 808,08 1 475 808,08
Depreciation 0,00 471 500,00 471 500,00
Net investment (wind farm) 12 600 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net investment (cable) -22 030 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net cash flow -9 430 000,00 1 947 308,08 1 947 308,08
Discounted cash flow -9 430 000,00 1 854 579,12 24 267 762,87
TOTAL 14 837 762,87
Table 6-3 Discounted Cash Flow VSC HVDC/SCIG versus HVAC/DFIG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

6.7.2 VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DDPMSG

(DCF analysis in €) Year 0 Year 1 Years 1-20
Energy output (wind farm) 0,00 416 699,28 416 699,28
Maintenance (wind farm) 0,00 -3 995 309,81 -3 995 309,81
Losses (cable) 0,00 -544 522,26 -544 522,26
Maintenance (cable) 0,00 -450 000,00 -450 000,00
EBITDA 0,00 -4 573 132,79 -4 573 132,79
Depreciation 0,00 -3 648 500,00 -3 648 500,00
Benefit before taxation 0,00 -924 632,79 -924 632,79
Taxation (40%) 0,00 -369 853,12 -369 853,12
Benefit after taxation 0,00 -554 779,68 -554 779,68
Depreciation 0,00 -3 648 500,00 -3 648 500,00
Net investment (wind farm) 95 000 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net investment (cable) -22 030 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net cash flow 72 970 000,00 -4 203 279,68 -4 203 279,68
Discounted cash flow 72 970 000,00 -4 003 123,50 -52 382 155,44
TOTAL 20 587 844,56
Table 6-4 Discounted Cash Flow VSC HVDC/SCIG versus HVAC/DDPMSG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

80
6.7.3 VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with GPMSG
(DCF analysis in €) Year 0 Year 1 Years 1-20
Energy output (wind farm) 0,00 928 919,80 928 919,80
Maintenance (wind farm) 0,00 -1 997 654,91 -1 997 654,91
Losses (cable) 0,00 -561 058,68 -561 058,68
Maintenance (cable) 0,00 -450 000,00 -450 000,00
EBITDA 0,00 -2 079 793,78 -2 079 793,78
Depreciation 0,00 -48 500,00 -48 500,00
Benefit before taxation 0,00 -2 031 293,78 -2 031 293,78
Taxation (40%) 0,00 -812 517,51 -812 517,51
Benefit after taxation 0,00 -1 218 776,27 -1 218 776,27
Depreciation 0,00 -48 500,00 -48 500,00
Net investment (wind farm) 23 000 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net investment (cable) -22 030 000,00 0,00 0,00
Net cash flow 970 000,00 -1 267 276,27 -1 267 276,27
Discounted cash flow 970 000,00 -1 206 929,78 -15 793 063,44
TOTAL -14 823 063,44
Table 6-5 Discounted Cash Flow VSC HVDC/SCIG versus HVAC/GPMSG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

6.7.4 Discussion
The energy output of a wind farm using SCIG is higher than any other topology. This is possible due to
the high efficiency of the drive train (Table 4-2). Compared to the topologies with DFIG and GPMSG, the
gain in energy output is enough to outweigh the monetary losses due to the use of VSC HVDC as
transmission system, whereas this is only partly the case in the comparison with DDPMSG.

The maintenance cost of the wind farm represents a high annual cost. The differences between the studied
topologies are significant and have a strong impact on the annual net cash flow. As the costs for
maintenance were based on limited experience and assumptions, further validation of these figures is
advised.

The combination of VSC HVDC with SCIG is more cost-efficient (~15 000 000 €) to install than the
combination of HVAC with DFIG for a 300 MW wind farm situated 50 km from the PCC. This is an
important result as most offshore wind farms, built or planned up to now, use HVAC with DFIG (e.g.
Horns Rev and Thornton). The lower investment costs of the wind farm together with the higher
efficiency of the SCIG topology and the lower need for maintenance are responsible for this result.

The combination of VSC HVDC with SCIG is more cost-efficient (~20 500 000 €) to install than the
combination of HVAC with DDPMSG as well. This result is due to the considerable higher investment
costs for DDPMSG wind turbines. The annual costs are higher for the SCIG topology.

GPMSGs are considered as promising options for the future. They find a compromise between an
expensive generator in the DDPMSG topology and a gearbox with related maintenance in the DFIG

81
topology. This can be seen in the DCF results as well. The combination of VSC HVDC with SCIG is less
cost-efficient (-15 000 000 €) than the combination of HVAC with GPMSG. The investment costs for
both options are almost break-even but the annual operational costs are higher for the option with VSC
HVDC and SCIGs

6.8 Relevance of the results

VSC HVDC is compared with HVAC in two ways. A first comparison considers the wind farm as a black
box. The benefits of VSC HVDC for the wind farm are not taken into account in this comparison. The
result of this comparison is relevant from a transmission system point of view. The transmission system
operator is responsible for the connection of the wind farm with the onshore grid in some countries (e.g.
Germany). The owner of the wind farm is another party than the owner of the transmission system. The
benefits achieved in the wind farm due to the use of VSC HVDC do not result in economic value for the
investor of the transmission link.

The second comparison has a look at the total system (wind farm + transmission link). This result is
relevant from a society point of view because the economic optimization is not influenced by several
different investor objectives. This case is valid in countries where the developer of an offshore wind farm
is responsible for the connection to the onshore grid as well.

6.9 Conclusion

A 300 MW wind farm situated at 50 km from the Point of Common Coupling as taken as a base example
to compare VSC HVDC with HVAC as connection between an offshore wind farm and the onshore grid.
Both transmission systems are compared with the wind farm considered as a black box. VSC HVDC is
found not to be a cost efficient option in this case, with a DCF result of -24 000 000 € compared to the
HVAC option.

A wind farm based on SCIG wind turbines connected with VSC HVDC was compared with the
conventional options for offshore wind farms (DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG) connected with HVAC. It
is concluded that the use of GPMSG with HVAC is more cost efficient than SCIG with VSC HVDC.
SCIG with VSC HVDC is nevertheless a less expensive option than DFIG with HVAC or DDPMSG with
HVAC. The topology with DFIG and HVAC is the current industry standard for large scale offshore wind
farms.

82
7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

7.1 Introduction

An economic comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC is made in the previous chapter for different
wind farm topologies. The results are based on a 300 MW wind farm situated 50 km from the PCC. The
outcome varies when a parameter is changed in the model. The sensitivity of the result to the variation of
the following parameters is investigated (the values between brackets are the base scenario values):

− Wind farm distance from PCC or cable length (50 km)

− Cost of energy (40 €/MWh)
VSC HVDC is a relatively new transmission technology compared to HVAC. The technological
evolution is still going on as we speak. The influence of further progress in two characteristics of the VSC
substation is investigated:

− Losses in converter station (1,6%)

− Volume of offshore converter station (100%)
7.2 Distance between wind farm and PCC

The comparison of two transmission systems often results in a break-even distance between the
investigated solutions. It is generally accepted that HVAC is more feasible for short cable lengths,
whereas HVDC becomes more viable for longer transmission distances. The statement of a break-even
distance between two technologies is nevertheless a delicate matter and each case will have a different
outcome. VSC HVDC was compared with HVAC in this thesis in a submarine environment. The results
of the analysis depend on a high number of variable parameters and presumptuous conclusions on the one
or the other technology should be avoided. Every wind farm project requires its own technical and
financial optimization. The results nevertheless give an indication of the proportions between HVAC and
VSC HVDC. The length of the cable is varied from 50 km to 25 km and 75 km to get an idea of the
sensitivity of the result to variation of the distance between the offshore wind farm and the PCC. The
financial data are adapted to these cable lengths and the losses and compensation equipment are
recalculated for the new cable length.

7.2.1 VSC HVDC compared to HVAC – Scenario 1

VSC HVDC and HVAC are first compared without looking at the wind farm itself. The results are shown
in Figure 7.1. The investment costs are plotted as a function of cable length for both technologies. The
difference between the investment costs of both technologies is shown as a yellow column for the three
investigated cable lengths. The per unit length investment costs are higher for HVAC than for VSC
HVDC. The total investment costs for HVAC become higher for a cable length of 75 km. The economic
value (DCF result) of VSC HVDC compared to HVAC increases with cable length. Nevertheless, the

83
DCF result (depicted in red columns) is still negative due to the higher losses and maintenance costs for a
cable of 75 km. VSC HVDC is therefore not a feasible solution for connection of an offshore wind farm
closer than 75 km from the PCC from this perspective (break-even distance 80 km).

InvC DCF HVAC InvC HVDC Light® InvC

200,0

150,0

100,0
M€

50,0

0,0

-50,0
25 50 75
Cable length L [km]

Figure 7.1 Total investment costs and DCF: VSC HVDC versus HVAC
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

7.2.2 VSC HVDC with SCIG compared to HVAC with other topologies – Scenario 2
The solution with VSC HVDC and SCIG wind turbines is now compared to HVAC with DFIG,
DDPMSG and GPMSG. The results are shown in Figure 7.2-4. The difference in total project investment
costs (wind farm + transmission cable) between the option with VSC HVDC and the option with HVAC
is shown in blue. The results of the discounted cash flow calculation are shown in green.

InvC Project DCF

50,0

25,0
M€

0,0

-25,0

-50,0
25 50 75
Cable length L [km]

Figure 7.2 Financial comparison: VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DFIG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

84
 InvC Project DCF

100,0

75,0

M€ 50,0

25,0

0,0

-25,0
25 50 75
Cable length [km]

Figure 7.3 Financial comparison: VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DDPMSG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

InvC Project DCF

50,0

25,0
M€

0,0

-25,0

-50,0
25 50 75
Cable length [km]

Figure 7.4 Financial comparison: VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with GPMSG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

A longer transmission cable has a positive effect on the economic value of the VSC HVDC option with
SCIG compared to the HVAC option with other topologies. The results for 25 and 75 km make it possible
to estimate the break-even distance between the different topologies.

A topology based on VSC HVDC in combination with SCIG results in a net annual benefit compared to
the option with HVAC and DFIG. This makes the DCF result higher than the difference in investment
costs. The break-even distance is estimated around 32 km.

A wind farm based on VSC HVDC with SCIG requires a considerably lower investment than a wind farm
based on HVAC and DDPMSG. The total system efficiency is lower for the wind farm with VSC HVDC
for shorter cable lengths and the maintenance requirement is higher. This results in a net annual monetary
loss for the wind farm operator with the VSC HVDC option. The discounted value of these annual losses
is nevertheless smaller than the difference in investment cost for cable lengths above 25 km and a wind

85
farm lifetime of 20 years. The break-even cable length is situated below 25 km.

A wind farm based on GPMSG promises an optimum between efficiency and maintenance and this for a
more limited investment cost than the DDPMSG. The economic comparison between a wind farm based
on VSC HVDC with SCIG and a wind farm based on HVAC with GPMSG show an annual loss for the
VSC HVDC option. The break-even cable length is situated around 68 km.

7.3 Cost of energy

The cost of energy is an arguable parameter. It depends on too many factors (e.g. country, weather,
competition in the market,…) to be represented by a fixed value for. The sensitivity of the DCF result to
variation of this parameter needs to be investigated. The base scenario value was set at 40 €/MWh. The
parameter is varied up to 80, 120 and 160 €/MWh. There are two reasons for assuming a higher value.
First of all the demand for energy is expected to grow in the coming years [37]. As the reserves of the
primary energy sources (especially oil) tend to decrease, an increase in energy cost can be expected.
Another reason is the possible governmental support for green energy. The Belgian government supports
the first 216 MW offshore wind farm with 107 €/MWh and 90 €/MWh for capacity above 216 MW [44].
These prices are given in the form of green certificates. Although the Belgian values are rather extreme, a
certain amount can be expected and should be incorporated in the cost of energy a wind farm developer
experiences.

The cost of energy influences the final result via two ways: the energy output of the wind farm and the
energy lost in the transmission cable. The energy output of the wind farm depends on the chosen topology
and its efficiency. The losses in the transmission cable depend on the length of the cable. The sensitivity
will therefore first be discussed for the comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC with the wind farm
as a black box. It will be discussed for a wind farm based on VSC HVDC with SCIG wind turbines
compared to a wind farm based on HVAC with other wind turbine topologies in section 7.3.2.

7.3.1 VSC HVDC compared to HVAC – Scenario 1

40 80 120 160
0,0

-10,0

-20,0

-30,0
DCF result [M€]

25 km
50 km
-40,0
75 km

-50,0

-60,0

-70,0

-80,0

Cost of energy [€/MWh]

Figure 7.5 Sensitivity of DCF result to variation of cost of energy: VSC HVDC versus HVAC

86
 (wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

An increase in cost of energy has a negative effect on the DCF result for VSC HVDC compared to
HVAC. The explanation is the higher losses of VSC HVDC, which become more important when the cost
of energy is higher. The effect is less negative for longer transmission distances. The losses in a HVAC
cable system increase more with increasing cable length than in a VSC HVDC cable system (Figure
5.17). A smaller difference in losses between both technologies (higher cable length) results in a less
sensitive result. The sensitivity becomes zero when the break-even distance for the losses is reached. This
is calculated in chapter 5 to be at 80 km.

7.3.2 VSC HVDC with SCIG compared to HVAC with other topologies – Scenario 2

40 80 120 160
70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0
DCF result [M€]

30,0 25 km
50 km
20,0 75 km

10,0

0,0

-10,0

-20,0
Cost of energy [€/MWh]

Figure 7.6 Sensitivity of DCF result to variation of cost of energy:

VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DFIG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

40 80 120 160
60,0

50,0

40,0
DCF result [M€]

30,0
25 km
20,0 50 km
75 km
10,0

0,0

-10,0

-20,0
Cost of energy [€/MWh]

Figure 7.7 Sensitivity of DCF result to variation of cost of energy:

VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with DDPMSG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

87
 40 80 120 160
30,0

20,0

10,0

DCF result [M€]

0,0 25 km
50 km
-10,0 75 km

-20,0

-30,0

-40,0
Cost of energy [€/MWh]

Figure 7.8 Sensitivity of DCF result to variation of cost of energy:

VSC HVDC with SCIG versus HVAC with GPMSG
(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

The net energy output difference at the onshore PCC defines the sign of the sensitivity in the comparisons
for the wind farm and transmission system. The connection with VSC HVDC compared to the use of
HVAC as transmission cable has a negative effect due to the higher losses. The difference in losses
between both transmission technologies becomes again smaller for a higher cable length. The wind farm
based on SCIG is more efficient than any of the other topologies under study (Table 4-2). The sum of the
drive train losses and the transmission losses are shown in Figure 7.9 for the studied topologies. The
difference of this sum for the compared topologies defines the sensitivity to the variation of the cost of
energy. The result is insensitive to the cost of energy when the difference is zero. The distances where
this happens can be read from Figure 7.9. These values correspond with Figure 7.6 to 7.8.

Figure 7.9 Sum of drive train and transmission system losses for compared topologies

88
7.4 Converter station losses of VSC HVDC

One of the main disadvantages of VSC HVDC is the high loss percentage of the converters. Since its
commercial introduction in 1997, loss percentages have nevertheless followed a decreasing trend due to
technological evolution in the converter. The converter losses are nowadays assumed at 1,6% per
converter [30] but some progress can be expected in this domain for the upcoming years. The DCF result
is therefore recalculated for converter losses down to 1% in steps of 0,2 %-points. The DCF values are
shown in Figure 7.10. As could be expected, the reduction in converter losses has a positive effect on the
DCF result in the comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC. The discounted cash flow increases with
1,8 M€ per 0,2%-points reduction in converter loss. This result is valid for any chosen wind farm
topology because the converter losses do not have an influence on the wind farm topology. The same
conclusion can be drawn for any cable length as shown in Figure 7.10.

1,6% 1,4% 1,2% 1,0%

10,0

0,0

-10,0
DCF result [M€]

25 km
-20,0 50 km
75 km

-30,0

-40,0

-50,0
Loss per converter [%]

Figure 7.10 Sensitivity of DCF result to reduction of converter losses

(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

7.5 Converter volume

An important cost factor in the investment cost for VSC HVDC is the cost for the offshore platform. A
reduction in converter volume offshore reduces this cost component and is expected to have a favorable
effect for VSC HVDC on the DCF result. The offshore converter volume is therefore reduced in steps of
10% of the original volume to a minimum of 70%. The DCF results are shown in Figure 7.11. The
discounted cash flow result increases with 1,8 M€ per 10% reduction in offshore converter volume. This
result is valid for any chosen wind farm topology because the offshore converter volume does not have an
influence on the wind farm topology. The same conclusion can be drawn for any cable length as shown in
Figure 7.11.

The results for reduction in losses and converter volume are important for VSC HVDC manufacturers. It
is seen that a 10% reduction of converter volume brings an equal economic benefit as a converter loss

89
reduction of 0,2 %-points. This figure can be used to decide in which field the efforts for technological
development are best put.

100% 90% 80% 70%

10,0

0,0

-10,0
DCF result [M€]

25 km
-20,0 50 km
75 km

-30,0

-40,0

-50,0
Offshore converter volume [%]

Figure 7.11 Sensitivity of DCF result to reduction of offshore converter volume

(wind farm lifetime = 20 years; taxation rate = 40%; discount factor = 5%)

7.6 Conclusion

The sensitivity of the results derived in Chapter 6 to variation of some important input parameters was
investigated in this chapter. A wind farm connected with VSC HVDC was always compared with a
system based on HVAC technology. The effect of the length of the transmission cable was investigated
first. This made it possible to derive break-even distances between two options. The results depend on the
topologies used in the comparison. A break-even distance of 80 km is found if only the transmission
function of VSC HVDC is compared with HVAC. VSC HVDC can influence the topology and operation
of a wind farm, resulting in wind farm simplification. The comparison between VSC HVDC with SCIGs
and HVAC with variable speed topologies resulted in break-even distances between 20 and 68 km
depending on the topology used with HVAC.

The cost of energy is an uncertain parameter. Its influence on the financial result depends on the chosen
wind turbine technology and the transmission distance. The result is more sensitive if the difference in
energy output at the onshore PCC is higher between the compared topologies.

Technological progress is expected for VSC HVDC in the form of a reduction of the losses in the
converter stations and a reduction of the volume of the offshore converter station. This progress will have
a positive effect on the feasibility of VSC HVDC.

90
8 CONCLUSIONS

Future wind farms are found to have a power rating higher than 200 MW and to be situated several tens
of kilometres from shore. The use of a separate transmission system is then unavoidable. This thesis
makes a comparison between VSC HVDC and HVAC for the connection of an offshore wind farm to the
onshore grid. HVAC is traditionally used, whereas VSC HVDC is a rather new technology with
promising characteristics in this context. The most important features of VSC HVDC are the control of
active and reactive power, the possibility to connect two asynchronous grids with even differing and
varying frequencies and the black start capability.

The different wind turbine topologies are discussed. Their advantages and disadvantages are explained,
especially for offshore use. The topology with directly connected squirrel cage induction generators
(SCIG) is still under consideration in combination with VSC HVDC, whereas it is found unfeasible in
combination with HVAC. The DFIG and (geared) direct-drive topology are possible with both VSC
HVDC and HVAC. The annual energy output of each wind turbine topology is investigated. An important
increase in energy output is achieved by using variable-speed operation of the wind turbines. The
operation of the offshore wind farm grid at variable frequency makes it possible to run directly connected
induction generators at variable speed. A multi-turbine frequency approach is used in this context. It was
shown that the effect on the annual energy output of this approach is negligible compared to individual
speed control per turbine.

In order to come to a more calculation-based analysis in this thesis, a typical wind farm is put upfront to
investigate. The power rating of the wind farm is chosen at 300 MW and the length of the transmission
cable at 50 km. The individual turbines are rated at 5 MW each. A M5 HVDC Light® is chosen as an
appropriate VSC HVDC transmission system for this wind farm. Two parallel 3-core HVAC cables rated
at 150 kV are chosen for the HVAC option. The compensation for the AC cables is approximately
dimensioned based on grid code requirements in the UK and calculations on the charging current in the
cables. The proposed VSC HVDC system succeeds in fulfilling the grid code requirements on power
factor control, frequency response and voltage dip ride-through without additional equipment. The
frequency response and voltage dip ride-through of the wind farm depends on the used wind turbine
topologies (converter) in the HVAC case. For a 300 MW wind farm situated at 50 km from the Point of
Common Coupling, the losses of the VSC HVDC link are found to be 4,45% of the Annual Produced
Energy whereas only 3,31% for HVAC cables. The influence of the cable length on the losses is
investigated. The pure line losses per km are found to be higher for HVAC cables than for HVDC cables.
This resulted in an approximate break-even distance for the losses of 80 km.

Both systems are compared on an economic basis. A first comparison is held with the wind farm
considered as a black box. VSC HVDC is found not to be a cost-efficient option in the case of a 300 MW
wind farm with cable length 50 km, with a DCF result of -24 000 000 € compared to the HVAC option.
91
VSC HVDC can possibly influence the topology and operation of a wind farm. The different wind turbine
topologies are therefore incorporated in the economic analysis. A wind farm based on SCIG wind
turbines connected with VSC HVDC was compared with the conventional options for offshore wind
farms (DFIG, DDPMSG and GPMSG). It is concluded that the use of GPMSG with HVAC is more cost
efficient than SCIG with VSC HVDC. SCIG with VSC HVDC is nevertheless a less expensive option
than DFIG with HVAC or DDPMSG with HVAC.

The sensitivity of the DCF result to variation of the cable length is investigated. A break-even distance of
80 km is found when the wind farm is taken as a black box. The comparison between VSC HVDC with
SCIGs and HVAC with variable speed topologies resulted in break-even distances between 20 and 68 km
depending on the topology used with HVAC. Progress is expected in the field of VSC HVDC in the form
of a reduction of the losses per converter station and a reduction of the volume of the offshore converter.
A reduction of the converter station losses with 0,2 %-points results in an increase of the DCF result with
1,8 M€. A reduction of the offshore converter volume with 10% results in an increase of the DCF result
with 1,8 M€. The influence of variations in cost of energy is investigated. The outcome depends on the
chosen wind turbine topology.

92
9 REFERENCES

[1] G. Asplund, K. Eriksson, K. Svensson, “DC transmission based on Voltage Source Converters,”
ABB Power Systems, presented at CIGRE Colloquium SC14, South Africa, 1997
[2] C. Sulzberger, “Triumph of AC – from Pearl Street to Niagara,” vol. 1, no. 3, May-June 2003, pp.
64-67
[3] W. Long and S. Nilsson, “HVDC Transmission: Yesterday and Today,” in IEEE Power & Energy
Magazine, March-April 2007, pp. 22-31
[4] K. Meah and S. Ula, “Comparative evaluation of HVDC and HVAC transmission systems,”
presented at IEEE Power Engineering Society – General Meeting, June 2007
[5] “Transmission Issues for Offshore Wind farms – with specific application to siting of the proposed
Cape Wind Project,” ESS, consultants to Cape Wind Associates, 2003
[6] G. Aanhaanen, “Cables versus overhead lines – the occupation of land,” presented at HVDC Power
Symposium Eindhoven, March 2006, [Online]. Available:
www.thor.edu/symposium/download/presentations/gertaanhaanen.pdf
[7] E. Peschke and R. von Olshausen, “Cable systems for High and Extra-High Voltage,” John Wiley
and Sons, January 2000
[8] N. B. Negra, J. Todorovic and T. Ackermann, “Loss evaluation of HVAC and HVDC transmission
solutions for large offshore wind farms,” in Electric power systems research 76, 2006, pp. 916-927
[9] R. Rudervall, J. Charpentier and R. Sharma, “High Voltage Direct Current Transmission Systems
Technology,” ABB Power Systems Sweden, Review Paper, July 2000
[10] “High Voltage Direct Current Transmission – Proven Technology for Power Exchange,” Siemens
AG, Power Transmission and Distribution, High Voltage Division. [Online]. Available :
http://w1.siemens.com/pool/en/whats_new/features/power/hvdc_proven_technology.pdf
[11] G. Asplund, L. Carlsson and O. Tollerz, “50 years HVDC: from pioneer to world leader,” ABB
Review, 2003
[12] L. Weimers, “Bulk Power Transmission at + 800 kV DC,” ABB Power Technologies, Ludvika,
Sweden, [Online]. Available: www.abb.com
[13] B. Andersen, “VSC Transmission,” CIGRE publication, CIGRE working group B4.37, April 2005
[14] N. B. Negra, “Losses Evaluation of HVDC Solutions for Large Offshore Wind Farms,” Master
Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, January 2005
[15] J. Arrilaga, Y. Liu and N. Watson, ”Flexible power transmission – The HVDC Options,” John
Wiley and Sons, 1st ed., 2007
[16] C. Du and M. Bollen, “Power-frequency control for VSC-HVDC during island operation,”
Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, presented
at the 8th IEE International Conference on AC an DC power transmission, 2006
[17] I. Mattsson, A. Ericsson, “Murray Link, The longest underground HVDC cable in the world,” ABB
Power Technologies, Sweden, presented at CIGRE Session B4-103, 2004
[18] L. Ronström and J. Lindberg, “Cross Sound Cable Project Second Generation VSC Technology for
HVDC,” ABB Power Technologies, presented at CIGRE Session B4-102, 2004, contact:
leif.ronstrom@se.abb.com

93
[19] Website HVDC Plus® [Online]. Available: https://www.energy-portal.siemens.com/
[20] P. Jones, “The secure and reliable integration of large wind farms in transmission grids,” ABB Ltd
UK, 2004
[21] S. Ip, “Operational experience of transmission oil-filled and XLPE cables,” International
Conference on Advances in Power System Control, Operation and Management, vol. 1, 1991, pp.
404-409
[22] “It’s time to connect – Technical description of HVDC Light® technology,” ABB Power Systems,
September 2006
[23] R. Belmans, “Liberalized markets and technical boundary conditions,” Technical report on
potential network problems. [Online]. Available : http://www.ce2030.be
[24] S. Johansson, G. Asplund, E. Jansson and R. Rudervall, “Power system stability benefits with VSC
DC-transmission systems,” ABB Corporate Research, presented at CIGRE Session B4-204, 2004
[25] M. Bahrmann, J. Johansson and B. Nilsson, “Voltage Source Converter transmission technologies
– The right fit for the application,” in IEEE Power engineering society – general meeting, Vol. 3,
July 2003, pp. 1847
[26] ”An introduction to black start,” National Grid Company – Marketing development, Tech. Rep.,
February 2001
[27] “Building the energy markets of tomorrow… today,” New York Independent System Operator –
Ancillary Services, [Online]. Available : http://www.nyiso.com
[28] “Learning from the blackouts – Transmission System Security in Competitive Electricity Markets,”
International Energy Agency – Energy Market Experience, OECD, 2005
[29] G. Li, C. Zhao, X. Zhang and G. Li, “Research on soft-startup of VSC HVDC in power system
restoration after blackout,” North China Electric Power University, IEEE 1-4244-0737-/07, 2007,
pp. 1939-1943
[30] “Estlink – connecting Estonia to the Nordic Network,” ABB AB High Voltage Cables, SEHVC
M-061E, [Online]. Available : http://library.abb.com
[31] L. Ronström, M. Hoffstein, R. Pajo and M. Lahtinen, “The Estlink HVDC Light® Transmission
System – Security and Reliability of Electric Power Systems,” presented at CIGRE Regional
Meeting, Tallinn, Estonia, June 18-20 2007
[32] “Power from shore – an introduction to HVDC Light® offshore”, Presentation ABB Automation
Technologies Division, October 2005
[33] N. Horle, K. Eriksson, A. Maeland and T. Nestli, “Electrical supply for offshore installations made
possible by use of VSC technology,” presented at CIGRE conference Paris, France, August 2002
[34] “Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability,” International Panel on Climate
Change, 4th Assessment report, April 2007, [Online]. Available :
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
[35] D. Ban, D. Zarko, “Generator Technology for wind turbines, trends in application and production
in Croatia,” Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Zagreb, Croatia, 2007
[36] “New world record in wind power capacity,” World Wind Energy Association, January 2007,
[Online]. Available : www.wwindea.com
[37] “Offshore wind experiences”, International Energy Agency, Tech. report, June 2005, [Online].
Available: http://www.iea.org
[38] P. Nielsen, “Offshore wind energy projects – Feasibility Study Guidelines”, SEAWIND Altener
94
 Project 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001, June 2003, [Online]. Available : www.emd.dk
[39] O. Martander, “DC grids for offshore wind farms,” Licentiate Thesis, Chalmers University of
Technology, Department of Electric Power Engineering, Goteborg, Sweden, 2002
[40] P. Bauer, S. de Haan, C. Meyl and J. Pierik, “Evaluation of electrical systems for offshore wind
farms,” Delft University of technology, IEEE 0-7803-6401-5/00, 2000, pp. 1416-1423
[41] M. Dahlgren, H. Frank, M. Leijon, F. Owman, L. Walfridsson, ”WindformerTM Wind power goes
large-scale”, ABB review 3, ABB Corporate Research Västerås, 2000
[42] “Offshore wind necessary to meet Eus 20% renewables target,” Tech. report, December 2007,
http://europa.eu
[43] C. Abbey, B. Khodabakhchian, F. Zhou, S. Dennetière, J. Mahseredjian and G. Joos, “Transient
Modeling and Comparison of Wind Generator Topologies,” presented at International conference
on Power System Transients (IPST´05), Montreal, Canada, Paper no. IPST05 – 131, June 19-23
2005
[44] R. Belmans, “Offshore wind energy in the North Sea,” presented at Energy Congress Assises de
l’Energie, Liège, Belgium, October 10-11 2007
[45] “Belgische Regierung zieht Baugenehmigung für Windpark ein – Klagen gegen das Projekt”,
article in Europaticker, Jahrgang 9, [Online]. Available : http://www.umweltruf.de/ticker/
[46] H. Kooijman, M. de Noord, C. Volkers, L. Machielse, F. Hagg, P. Eecen, J. Pierikm and S.
Herman, “Cost and potential of Offshore Wind Energy on the Dutch part of the North Sea,” ECN
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, Petten, The Netherlands, Tech. Report, 2000
[47] G. van Bussel, A. Henderson, “State of the Art and Technology Trends for offshore wind energy:
Operation and maintenance Issues,” Delft University of Technology, Faculty Civil Engineering and
Geosciences, Section Wind Energy, The Netherlands
[48] J. Kuhbier, “Offshore wind power in Germany,” presented at EU Policy workshop Berlin, Stiftung
Offshore Windenergie, February 2007
[49] DENA, “Energiewirtschaftliche Planung für die Netzintegration von Windenergie in Deutschland
an Land und Offshore bis zum Jahr 2020 (DENA-Netzstudie),” Köln, February 2005,
http://www.deutsche-energie-agentur.de
[50] B. Normark, E. Koldby Nielsen, ”Advanced power electronics for cable connection of offshore
wind,” ABB Power Technologies AB, Sweden, presented at Copenhagen Offshore Wind
Conference, 2005
[51] L. Holdsworth, X. Wu, J. Ekanayake and N. Jenkins, “Comparison of fixed speed and doubly-fed
induction wind turbines during power system disturbances,” in IEE Proceedings Generation
Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 150, No.3, no. 20030251, 2003
[52] “Generatorsysteme für die Windkraft,” [Online]. Available :
http://www.automation.siemens.com/ld/windkraft/index_00.html
[53] Fuglsang, P., and K. Thomsen, “Cost Optimization of Wind Turbines for Large-Scale Offshore
Wind Farms”, Risø-R-1000(EN), Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark
[54] G. Sterzinger, M. Svrcek, “Wind turbine development: Location of Manufacturing Activity,”
Renewable Energy Policy Project, USA, Tech. Report, September 2004
[55] P. Pourbeik, R. Koessler, D. Dickmander and W. Wong, “Integration of Large Wind Farms into
Utility Grids (Part 2 – Performance Issues),” ABB Inc., 940 Main Campus Dr, suite 300, Raleigh
NC 27606

95
[56] “Grid Code – High and extra high voltage,” E.ON Netz GmbH, Bayreuth, Status: 1st April 2006
[57] “The Grid Code”, Issue 3, Revision 16, 30th May 2006, National Grid Electricity Transmission,
Warwick CV34 6DA
[58] H. Polinder, S. De Haan, M. Dubois and J. Slootweg, “Basic operation principles and electrical
conversion systems of wind turbines,” Delft University of Technology, Electrical Power Processing
Group, The Netherlands
[59] H. Lauw, C. Weigand and D. Marckx, “Variable-speed wind system design,” US Dept. of Energy,
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, Final Report, October 1993, [Online].
Available : http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/10125834-70tMnX/native/
10125834.PDF
[60] A. McIver, D. Holmes, P. Freere, “Optimal control of a variable speed wind turbine under dynamic
wind conditions,” in Conf. Rec. Industry Applications Conference, 33rd IAS Annual Meeting, San
Diego, vol. 3, 1996, pp. 1692-1698
[61] C. Feltes, I. Erlich, “Variable Frequency Operation of DFIG based Wind Farms connected to the
Grid through VSC-HVDC Link,” University of Duisburg-Essen, presented at Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, 2007
[62] M. Wilch, V. Pappala, S. Singh and I. Erlich, ”Reactive power generation by DFIG based wind
farms with AC grid connection,” Institute of Electrical Power Systems (EAN), Universität
Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany, 2007
[63] “The differences between HVDC Light® and Classical HVDC,” October 2007, [Online].
Available : http://www.abb.com/cawp/gad02181/c1256d71001e0037c12569c9006068f7.aspx
[64] H. Polinder, F. van der Pijl, G. de Vilder, P. Tavner, “Comparison of Direct-Drive and Geared
Generator Concepts for Wind Turbines,” Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands,
presented at IEEE International Conference on Electrical Machines and Drives, 2005, pp. 543-550
[65] W. Musial, S. Butterfield and B. McNiff, “Improving wind turbine gearbox reliability,” presented
at European Wind Energy Conference, Milan, Italy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2007
[66] W. Qiao, L. Qu and R. Harley, “Control of IPM Synchronous Generator for Maximum Wind
Power Generation Considering Magnetic Saturation,” in Conf. Rec. of the IEEE Industry
Applications Conference, 42nd IAS Annual Meeting, 2007, pp. 1265-1272
[67] S. Bolognani, M. Tomasini, L. Tubiana, M. Zigliotto, ”Start-up strategy for a sensorless Direct
Drive PM generator for wind turbines,” in Proc. Of the IEEE International Symposium on
Industrial Electronics, 2005, pp. 1801-1806
[68] R. Leão, T. Degner and F. Antunes, “An overview on the integration of large-scale wind power
into the electric power system,” Dept. of electrical engineering, Federal University of Ceará, Brazil,
2007
[69] S. Achilles and M. Pöller, “Direct Drive Synchronous Machine Models for Stability Assessment of
Wind Farms,” published by DIgSILENT GmbH, Gomaringen, Germany
[70] F. Iov, P. Sørensen, A. Hansen and F. Blaabjerg, ”Grid Connection of active stall wind farms using
a VSC based DC transmission system,” Institute of Energy Technology, Aalborg University,
Denmark, presented at EPE Dresden, 2005
[71] P. Nørgaard and H. Holttinen, “A Multi-Turbine Power Curve Approach,” presented at Nordic
Wind Power Conference, 1-2 March 2004, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden
[72] “Repower 5M – Proven technology in new dimensions”, Repower Systems Germany, [Online].
Available : http://www.repower5m.de/index_flash_uk.htm

96
[73] A. Skytt, P. Holmberg, L. Juhlin, ”HVDC Light for connection of wind farms,” presented at 2nd
International workshop on transmission networks for offshore wind farms, Royal institute of
Technology, Stockholm, March 29-30, 2001
[74] Website Wind Farm Thornton Bank: www.c-power.be
[75] M. Sippola, “Developments for the high frequency power transformer design and implementation,”
Helsinki University of Technology, Applied Electronics Laboratory, Series E: Electronic
Publications E3, Espoo, 2003
[76] S. Meier, S. Norrga, H. Nee, “New voltage source converter topology for HVDC grid connection
of offshore wind farms,” Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
[77] J. Coelingh, A. van Wijk and A. Holtslag, “Analysis of wind speed observations over the North
Sea,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, no. 61 pg 51-69, 1996, Dept. of
Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University
[78] “XLPE Submarine Cable Systems – Attachment to XLPE Cable Systems User’s guide”, ABB’s
High Voltage Cable Unit Sweden, [Online]. Available : www.abb.com/cables
[79] “XLPE Cable Systems User’s guide”, ABB’s High Voltage Cable Unit Sweden, [Online].
Available : www.abb.com/cables
[80] H. Brakelmann, “Efficiency of HVAC Power Transmission from Offshore-Windmills to the Grid,”
presented at IEEE Bologna Power Technology Conference, Italy, June 2003
[81] C. Morgan, H. Snodin, N. Scott, ”Offshore Wind – Economies of scale, engineering resource and
load factors,” Garrad Hassan and Partners, Department of Trade and Industry/Carbon Trust, Tech.
Report, December 2003
[82] Website Horns Rev: www.hornsrev.dk
[83] L. Xu and B. Andersen, “Grid connection of Large offshore Wind Farms using HVDC,” School of
Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University of Belfast, Wind
Energy, published in Wiley Interscience, December 2005
[84] P. Bjorklund, “User guide for the PSS/E implementation of HVDC Light”, ABB Sweden, 2006
[85] M. Sato, Y. Shima, H. Takahashi and Y. Sanpei, “Inrush currents of induction generators due to
abrupt connection to utility power networks,” Electrical Engineering in Japan, in Wiley Periodicals,
Volume 113, Issue 5, 1993, pp. 71-82
[86] P. Maibach, J. Wernli, P. Jones and M. Obad, “STATCOM technology for wind parks to meet grid
code requirements,” Advanced Power Electronics, ABB Switzerland Ltd, [Online]. Available:
http://library.abb.com/
[87] S. Chondrogiannis, M. Barnes, M. Atent and P. Cartwrightt, “Modelling and GB Grid Code
Compliance Studies of Offshore Wind Farms with Doubly-Fed Induction Generators,” University
of Manchester, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
[88] I. Erlich and U. Bachmann, “Grid Code Requirements concerning Connection and Operation of
Wind Turbines in Germany,” Power System Department., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany,
in Proc. Power Engineering Society General Meeting, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 1253-1257
[89] P. Christiansen, K. Jorgensen and A. Grueland, “Grid connection and remote control for the Horns
Rev 150 MW offshore wind farm in Denmark,” ELSAMPROJEKT A/S, Fredericia, Denmark,
[Online]. Available : www.owen.eru.rl.ac.uk/workshop_4/pdfs/owen_Christiansen.pdf
[90] J. Morren, J. Pierik and S. de Haan, “Inertial response of variable speed wind turbines,” Electric
Power Processing, Delft University of Technology, in Electric Power Systems Research, no. 76, p
97
 980-987, 2006
[91] A. Dahlgren, C. Klippel, Å. Juntti and O. Samuelsson, ”Recorded Fault Ride Through Capability
for Two Types of Wind Turbine Generators,” presented at Nordic Wind Power Conference, Espoo,
Finland, May 2006
[92] T. Chuong, P. Van Hoa, “Effect of wind generators in voltage dips,” presented at International
Symposium on Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, October 2007
[93] “AC resistance, skin effect & proximity effect,” General Cable New Zealand Ltd, [Online].
Available: www.generalcable.co.nz/Technical/10.3.2.1.pdf
[94] C. Landinger, “Basic cable characteristics – Part II,” Hendrix Wire & Cable, [Online]. Available:
www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/icc/subcommittees/subcom_e/E4/2001/f2001_landinger.ppt
[95] T. Elliot, K. Chen and R. Swanekamp, “Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering,”
McGraw-Hill, 2nd Edition, ISBN 0-07-019435-1, 1998
[96] P. Djapic and G. Strbac, “Grid Integration Options for Offshore Wind Farms,” DTI Centre for
Distributed Generation and sustainable electrical energy, December 2006
[97] “Study on the development of the offshore grid for connection of the Round Two Wind Farms,”
Econnect Project No: 1312, January 2005
[98] M. Rashwan, “Evaluation of HVDC Light® as an Alternative for the Vancouver Island
transmission Reinforcement (VITR) Project – Appendix Q”, Transgrid Solutions, Report C1023,
Tech. Report, April 2005
[99] “Transmission issues for offshore wind farms with specific application to siting of the proposed
Cape Wind Project”, ESS Inc., Consultants to Cape Wind Associates, 2003
[100] “Cost comparison between HVDC Light and HVAC”, Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. BR-MATL-20
study, 253020\981370.v1, [Online]. Available :
https://www3.eub.gov.ab.ca/eub/dds/iar_query/ShowAttachment.aspx?DOCNUM=707552
[101] “North Auckland and Northland Grid Upgrade Project – Attachment E: Assessment of Options,”
Transpower, New Zealand, September 2007, [Online]. Available :
http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/pdfs/opdev/transmis/gup/naan/Part-III-Attachment-E-
Assesment-of-Options.pdf
[102] “Middletown – Norwalk Transmission Project – Technical description of VSC HVDC and cable
technology,” Prepared for Northeast Utilities by ABB Power Technologies AB, Ludvika, Sweden,
October 2004
[103] S. Cole, D. Van Hertem, I. Pardon and R. Belmans, “Randstad HVDC,” Research group Electa,
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, KULeuven, Belgium, August 2006, [Online]. Available:
http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/vsc-hvdc/reports/Randstad_HVDC.pdf
[104] “ABB wins power order worth more than $400 million for world’s largest offshore wind farm,”
ABB press release, September 2007, [Online]. Available:
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/98b8128e95e94127c125735a003203e3.aspx
[105] Website of Nordic Energy Link: http://www.nordicenergylink.com/
[106] D. Larsson, “FACTS and HVDC for grid connection of large wind farms,” Power-Gen Europe,
November 2005, Milano, Italy, [Online]. Available: http://www02.abb.com/
global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/be4459f26efafab3c125702d004e4b1d/$file/PGE05+-+ID197_200+-+A
BB+Presentation+FACTS+and+HVDC.pdf
[107] J. Green, A. Bowen, L. Fingersh, Y. Wan, “Electrical collection and Transmission Systems for
Offshore Wind Power,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, presented at
98
 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 2007
[108] P. Nielsen, “Offshore wind energy projects – Feasibility Study Guidelines,” SEAWIND, Altener
Project 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001, June 2003, [Online]. Available: www.emd.dk
[109] “Annual report 2006,” Austin Energy, Texas, USA, [Online]. Available: www.austinenergy.com
[110] “Extended coverage: AMSC’s SuperVAr Enters Changing FACTS Marketplace,” D. Eromon cited
in Superconductorweek, Dept. of Electronics, Computer and Information Technology, North
Carolina A&T State University, [Online]. Available :
http://www.superconductorweek.com/scw/2000/amsc1.htm
[111] E. Hau, “Wind turbines – Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics,” Springer, 2nd
edition, 2006
[112] “Wind Web Tutorial,” American Wind Energy Association, [Online]. Available :
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html
[113] J. Slootweg, H. Polinder and W. Kling, “Dynamic modelling of a wind turbine with Doubly Fed
Induction Generator,” Electrical Power Systems, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems,
Delft University of Technology, IEEE 2001, 0-7803-7173-9/01, pp. 644-649
[114] S. Meier, P. Kjaer, “Benchmark of Annual Energy Production for Different Wind Farm
Topologies,” Royal Institute of Technology, Electrical Machines and Power Electronics,
Stockholm, Sweden
[115] Repower 5M – Proven Technology in New Dimensions – website of Repower systems, [Online].
Available : http://www.repower5m.de/index_flash_uk.htm
[116] P. Mutschler and R. Hoffmann, “Comparison of Wind Turbines Regarding their Energy
Generation,” Dept. of Power Electronics and Control of Drives, Darmstadt University of
Technology, Darmstadt, Germany
[117] “24 million Euro submarine power cable contract for the Sheringham Shoal Offshore Wind farm,”
Nexans press release, April 2008, [Online]. Available : http://www.nexans.com/eservice/Belgium-
en/navigatepub_146412_-15936_265_2331/24_million_Euro_submarine_power_cable_contract
_for.html
[118] T. van der Wekken, F. Wien, “Leonardo ENERGY Webinar: Wind Energy,” Presentation by
KEMA, January 2007
[119] J. Manwell, “An overview of the technology and economics of offshore wind farms,” Renewable
Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts, US
[120] T. Burton, D. Sharpe, N. Jenkins, E. Bossanyi, “Wind Energy Handbook,” John Wiley & Sons,
2001
[121] S. Herman, H. Kooijman and H. Hendriks, “Variations on a 500 MW offshore wind farm design,”
presented at Offshore wind energy in Mediterranean and other European Seas (OWEMES
conference), Naples, Italy, April 2003
[122] A. Kilk, “Low-speed permanent-magnet synchronous generator for small-scale wind power
applications,” Oil Shale, Vol. 24, No. 2 Special, pp. 318-331, Dept. of Fundamentals of Electrical
Engineering and Electrical Machines, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia, 2007
[123] Website Enercon E-112 : http ://www.enercon.de/en/e112.htm
[124] H. Brakelmann, K. Burges, ”Transmission technologies for collective offshore wind farm
connections,” Universität Duisburg-Essen, Dept. ETS, Germany
[125] H. Brakelmann, K. Burges, M. Jensen and T. Schütte, “Bipolar transmission systems with XLPE

99
 HVAC submarine cables,” Universität Duisburg-Essen, Dept. ETS, Germany
[126] S. Santoso, H. Le, “Fundamental time-domain wind turbine models for wind power studies,” in
Renewable Energy 32, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas, Austin,
2007, pp. 2436-2452
[127] B. Boukhezzar, L. Lupu, H. Siguerdidjane, M. Hand, “Multivariable control strategy for variable
speed, variable pitch wind turbines,” in Renewable Energy 32, Automatic Control Department,
Supelec, 2007, pp. 1273-1287

100
10 APPENDICES

10.1 Appendix A – Matlab model

The calculations in this thesis require a wind turbine model. A model is therefore developed in
Matlab/Simulink. The model is based on [126] and [127].

The main assumptions of the model are:

Nominal power: Pnom = 5 MW;

Weibull parameters: A = 9,8 m/s; C = 2,1;
Air density: air = 1,225 kg/m³;
Blade radius: R = 63 m;
Pitch angle: = 0..40°;
Wind speed range: vwind = 3..30 m/s; (cut-in to cut-out)

Variable speed operation is used at low wind speeds. The rotational speed range of the blades ( min.. max)

is an input parameter of the matlab model. The Matlab model calculates the optimal settings for an
instantaneously responding wind turbine. It returns the optimal rotational speed and pitch angle, given a
certain input wind speed.

The Simulink model allows for time-domain analysis. The inertia of the turbine blades prohibits the
immediate response of the wind turbine. This inertial response is implemented via the equation of motion.
A control loop for the pitch angle is implemented to track the optimal pitch angle setting. The simulink
model is for example used for the time-domain analysis in section 5.5.3.1.

101
10.2 Appendix B – Rotational speed range

The range in which the rotational speed of the blades is varied in variable-speed topologies, differs from
topology to topology. A typical nominal rotational speed for a 5MW wind turbine is 12,1 rpm [74]. For
the option based on SCIG controlled by the VSC HVDC link, the data from the Tjaerborg project are
taken [73] to define the rotational speed range of the turbines. The frequency was variable between 30
and 50 Hz, which leads to a minimum rotational speed of 7,26 rpm. It is not certain if 30 Hz is the
absolute minimum frequency (and thus rotational speed) achievable with this configuration. The
connection to the Troll A platform is used as a motor drive and can lower the frequency offshore to
almost 0 Hz. For a DFIG turbine, data are taken from the REpower 5M turbine [115]. The rotational
speed is varied between 6,9 and 12,1 rpm. The speed range of a direct-drive topology depends on the
capability of the converter. E.g. the Enercon E-112 rated 4,5 MW is designed to lower its speed to 8 rpm
[123]. Rotational speeds down to 6,2 rpm were nevertheless achieved during operation with this turbine.

A higher speed range allows the turbine to better optimize the coefficient of performance of the blades.
Therefore a higher power output is achieved in the low speed ranges. A detail of the power-speed curves
is shown in Figure 10.1. It was calculated that the annual produced energy of a direct-drive topology will
be 0,47% higher than for a SCIG topology and 0,28% higher than for a DFIG topology. The overall effect
on the annual energy yield is not taken into account further. The differences are small and the data on the
speed ranges are uncertain.

Figure 10.1 Detail of power-speed curves for different wind turbine topologies
(based on matlab wind turbine model)

102
10.3 Appendix C – Capacity factors

Weibull parameters for wind farm on different locations:

A (m/s) C (-) Average Wind

Speed (m/s)

Offshore Wind Farm 9,8 2,1 8,68

Coastal Wind Farm 8 1,9 7,10

Onshore Wind Farm 7,2 1,8 6,40

(non coastal)
Table 10-1 Wind speed data

Figure 10.2 Probability density function for different wind farm locations

Annual Energy Increment due Capacity

output (MWh) to variable Factor
speed (%) (%)

Fixed speed Variable speed Fix Var

Offshore Wind Farm 1 055 000 1 142 000 8,25 40,14 43,46

Coastal Wind Farm 725 280 816 650 12,60 27,60 31,07

Onshore Wind Farm 584 890 674 190 15,27 22,26 25,65
(non coastal)
Table 10-2 Energy output for different locations

103
10.4 Appendix D – HVAC offshore substation

Figure 10.3 Horns Rev transformer station (160 MW)

Figure 10.4 Installation of offshore transformer station (UK)

104