Page 1 of 45

Commercial-in-Confidence Cleeve Road, Leatherhead

Surrey, KT22 7SA, UK
T: +44 (0) 1372 367350

Report Title: Economic Analysis of Large Submarine Cables

Authors: A Friday, Martin Luckett

Client: OWPB (Offshore Wind Programme Board)

Client Reference: ORE/16/06

Report Number: 2016-0350

Project Number: EDP3126001
Report Version: Final Report Issue 3
Document Control: Commercial-in-Confidence

Report Checked by: Approved by:

Nick Blackman Alan Friday

Principal Engineer Head of Engineering Design
November 2016
Ref. EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V3.docx

PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION:
This document is distributed to OWPB (Offshore Wind Programme Board) for the sole purpose of
commercial use. Rights to copy or distribute this document are only granted for the stated purpose. The
document may not otherwise be used or distributed without the prior written permission of Edif ERA.

www.edifgroup.com
ERA Technology Limited.
Company number 07419599. Registered in England and Wales. Registered address: Cleeve Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7SA, UK.
Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

© ERA Technology Limited 2016

All Rights Reserved
No part of this document may be copied or otherwise reproduced without the prior written permission of ERA
Technology Limited. If received electronically, recipient is permitted to make such copies as are necessary to:
view the document on a computer system; comply with a reasonable corporate computer data protection and
back-up policy and produce one paper copy for personal use.

Distribution List
Client (1)
Project File (1)
Information Centre (1)

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Distribution of this document by the recipient(s) is authorised in accordance with the following commercial restrictive
markings:

Commercial-in-confidence : No distribution or disclosure outside of the recipient’s organisation is

permitted without the prior written permission of Edif ERA.

Distributed-in-confidence : Distribution of the document shall be in accordance with the document

distribution list and no further distribution or disclosure shall be allowed
without
No part of this document may be copied the prior written
or otherwise permission
reproduced withoutofthe
Edifprior
ERA.written permission of
ERA Technology Limited. If received electronically, recipient is permitted to make such copies as
are necessary to: view the: document
Recipient-in-confidence on a computer
Edif ERA distributes system; comply
this document to the with a reasonable
recipient corporate
on the condition that no
computer data protection and back-up
further policy and
distribution orproduce onebypaper
disclosure copy forshall
the recipient personal use.
be allowed.

Client-in-Confidence : ERA Technology Ltd provides this document in confidence to the

client. The Client may use and copy the document in whole without
alteration for its own business purposes including disclosure to third parties

Where specified the document may only be used in accordance with the ‘Purpose of Distribution’ notice displayed on
the cover page.

For the purpose of these conditions, the recipient’s organisation shall not include parent or subsidiary organisations.

Permission to disclose within recipient’s organisation does not extend to allowing access to the document via
Internet, Intranet or other web-based computer systems.

Commercial restrictive markings are as contained in page header blocks.

If no restrictive markings are shown, the document may be distributed freely in whole, without alteration, subject to
Copyright.

ERA Technology Limited

Cleeve Road
Leatherhead
Copied or otherwise reproduced
Surreywith
KT22the prior
7SA, permission in writing of ERA Technology Ltd. Such written
England
permission must also Tel
be obtained
: +44 (0) 1372 367350part of this document is stored in an electronic system
before any
of whatever nature. Fax: +44 (0) 1372 367359

Read more about Edif ERA on our Internet page at: www.edifgroup.com

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 2 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Summary
ORE Catapult has a requirement to explore the feasibility of using extra-large AC cables for offshore
wind farm export applications. Extra-large export cables have the potential for reducing the number
of circuits and hence installation costs thereby contributing towards the industry drive to reduce the
cost of offshore wind farm developments.

A fatal flaw study has shown that there is no fundamental reason to prevent extra-large cables being
used for offshore wind farm applications.

Edif ERA has undertaken a study in this area and our findings are as follows:

Three cable manufacturers advise that their upper conductor size limit for 220kV cables ranges from
1600mm2 to 1800mm2. A fourth claims their upper limit to be 2500mm2.

Information from subsea cable installers indicates that the upper limit for 3-core cables having
copper conductors is 1600mm2, whilst cable with 2500mm2 aluminium conductors can be
accommodated.

Combining the costs of installation, losses and failures results in a 9% saving for the 220kV cable and
a 21% saving for the 275kV cable, compared to the 132kV base case.

For a 10 ton vessel approximately 61km of extra-large 275kV cable can be loaded.

Mixed systems where copper conductors are used at the thermal pinch point and aluminium
conductors are used elsewhere are viable and type tested solutions are available from several
manufacturers

With regard to power transmission limitations, harmonic distortion is only a factor for cable lengths
greater than 60km, whilst the Ferranti effect and Temporary Overvoltage are only significant for
cable lengths greater than 120 km

Reactive compensation costs are higher for both large cables compared to the base case.

The high reactive power compensation costs for long cable lengths suggest that consideration
should also be given to HVDC cables as an alternative, but this is outside the scope of this study.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 3 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Contents
Page No.

1. Introduction 7

2. Assumptions 7

3. Discussion 9
3.1 Cable Manufacturer’s Capabilities and Costs 9

3.2 Installation Capabilities and Costs 11

3.3 Mixed Conductor Systems 15

3.4 Energy losses 16

3.5 Charging Current and Reactive Compensation 18

3.5.1 Reactive Compensation Costs 22

3.6 Power Transmission Limitations 28

3.6.1 Ferranti Effect 28

3.6.2 Harmonics/Temporary overvoltages 30

3.7 Availability and Loss of Energy 33

4. Conclusions 37

Appendix A Responses from Cable Makers 40

Appendix B Responses from Installer 43

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 4 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Tables List
Page No.

Table 1 Project Assumptions................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2 Cable maker’s capabilities to manufacture large 3 core subsea cables .................................. 10

Table 3 Maximum tonnage of subsea cable installation vessels .......................................................... 12

Table 4 Cable weights for large 3-core cables (kg/m)........................................................................... 13

Table 5 Three core cable 275kV lengths (km) accommodated by various installation vessels ............ 13

Table 6 Continuous current ratings for 3-core subsea cables .............................................................. 15

Table 7 Power losses for 3-core cables ................................................................................................. 17

Table 8 Annual costs of losses based on 50% and 100% operation ..................................................... 17

Table 9 Power losses for 3-core cables (limited load) .......................................................................... 17

Table 10 Annual costs of losses based on 50% and 100% operation at limited load ........................... 18

Table 11 Compensation calculations for the 132kV base case ............................................................. 19

Table 12 Compensation calculations for 220kV 1000mm2 cable ......................................................... 20

Table 13 Compensation calculations for 275kV 2000mm2 cable .......................................................... 21

Table 14 Shunt reactor costs ................................................................................................................ 22

Table 15 GIS substation costs ............................................................................................................... 23

Table 16 Reactive compensation costs (£million) for 132kV 3-core 800mm2 cable ............................ 24

Table 17 Reactive compensation costs (£million) for 220kV 3-core 1000mm2 cable .......................... 25

Table 18 Reactive compensation costs (£million) for 275kV 3 core 2000mm2 cable ........................... 26

Table 19 Reactive power compensation cost comparison at 100km ................................................... 27

Table 20 Cable failure rates per 100km ................................................................................................ 34

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 5 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 21 Effect of one export cable failure on wind farm output ........................................................ 35

Table 22 Power curve for 3.6MW wind turbine ................................................................................... 35

Table 23 Estimated costs and repair times ........................................................................................... 36

Table 24 Annual costs comparison from Excel model .......................................................................... 36

Table 25 Fatal Flaw Study summary .................................................................................................... 37

Figures List
Page No.

Figure 1 Cost increase over base case (132kV) Vs Al and Cu conductor size for a 275kV cable........... 11

Figure 2 Charging capacitance .............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 3 Voltage rise vs length for large 3 core cables due to Ferranti Effect ...................................... 29

Figure 4 Harmonic resonance of 220kV 1000mm2 cable at maximum and minimum fault level ........ 32

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 6 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

1. Introduction
ORE Catapult has a requirement to explore the feasibility of using extra-large AC cables for offshore
wind farm export applications. Extra-large export cables have the potential for reducing the number
of circuits and hence installation costs thereby contributing towards the industry drive to reduce the
cost of offshore wind farm developments.

This report presents the findings of an Edif ERA study on the technical and economic feasibility of
using extra-large cables for offshore wind farm export applications. The cable manufacturing and
installation costs have been evaluated comparing currently available export cables with the potential
extra-large cable design. In addition cable manufacturing and installation (vessel) methods are
assessed to determine if the technology used limits the introduction of extra-large cables.

The practical electrical limitations of the extra-large design have been determined taking into
consideration the impact on rest of the cable system, and electrical equipment such as switchgear
and reactive compensation.

The outputs of the study form a fatal flaw study to establish if there are any major roadblocks to the
adoption of extra-large cables on offshore wind farm developments. The project is concluded with a
cost benefit analysis to gauge the potential economic benefits for selecting extra-large cable designs
over and above smaller, lower voltage alternatives.

2. Assumptions
The assumptions used on this study were discussed and agreed with ORE Catapult and their
stakeholders. They are summarised in Table 1. The majority of input data for the base case and
extra-large cable design are taken from a recent Southampton University report, also performed on
behalf of ORE CATAPULT.

Table 1 Project Assumptions

# Task Assumption Description Source/s

1 Export cable Cable Design 132kV three core 800sq mm copper Southampton
Manufacturing Base Case conductor XLPE Uni report
2 costs Extra-large 275kV three core 2000mm² copper Southampton
cable conductor XLPE (note extra-large case Uni report
dependant on the size a particular
manufacturer can produce)
3 Export cable Cable Design Southampton
installation Base Case 132kV three core 800sq mm copper Uni report
costs conductor XLPE
4 Extra-large 275kV three core 2000mm² copper Southampton
cable conductor XLPE Uni report

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 7 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

5 Mixed Base Case 220kV three core 1000sq mm copper

conductor Cables conductor XLPE
systems (Al/Cu)
220kV three core 1000sq mm Aluminium
conductor XLPE
7 Extra-large 275kV three core 2000 sq mm copper Southampton
cable conductor XLPE Uni report

275kV three core 2000 sq mm aluminium

conductor XLPE

8 Route Sea bed Tr = 0.7K.m/W-1 Southampton

Properties Sea water temp = 15°C Uni report
Burial depth (subsea) = 3m
HDD bore = 2.5*cable O.D
HDD thickness = 90mm (PE)
Backfill = Bentonite
Bentonite Tr = 1.0K.m/W-1
HDD burial depth = 10m max
Onshore soil Tr = 1.1K.m/W-1
Onshore soil temp = 15°C
J-tube bore = 2.5*cable O.D
J-tube thickness = 30mm
J-tube position = outside
Solar radiation = 1000Wm-2 (IEC value)
Solar absorption = 0.4
Emissivity = 0.9
Air temp = 20°C
9 Route length 20km ERA
assumption

10 Load profile To be agreed

11 Cable cost of As per results of mixed systems study for Mixed
Cable losses
energy the base case and extra-large designs system study
12 Charging Base Case 220kV three core 1000sq mm copper
current and Cable conductor XLPE
reactive
compensation
13 Extra-large 275kV three core 2000 sq mm copper Southampton
cable conductor XLPE Uni report

14 Power Extra-large 275kV three core 2000 sq mm copper Southampton

transmission cable conductor XLPE Uni report
limitations
15 Cable Design 220kV three core 1000 sq mm aluminium
Base Case conductor XLPE
16 Availability and MTBF 0.00365 to 0.01095 failure/year and km (we do Strathclyde

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 8 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

loss of energy not consider this figure is accurate) Uni report*

17 MTTR 60 days (we do not consider this figure is Cigre/DNV
accurate)
18 Failure rate 0.007 per occ/yr/100km (we do not Cigre/DNV
consider this figure is accurate)
19 Base Case 220kV three core 1000sq mm copper
Cable conductor XLPE

20 Extra-large 275kV three core 2000 sq mm copper Southampton

cable conductor XLPE Uni report

21 Terminations
base case GIS dry type to IEC 62271-209
22 Wind Farm
Capacity 600MW
23 Reactive 220kV end to end option
24 Compensation 220kV mid-point span option
25 Switchgear 8DN9-2 (220kV)

3. Discussion

3.1 Cable Manufacturer’s Capabilities and Costs

The manufacturing cost of a subsea export power cable is dependent on many factors, which include
but are not limited to, the following:

 Raw materials (Copper, Aluminium, XLPE insulation etc.)

 Product and compound development
 Factory overheads including energy costs and new manufacturing technology (uprated laying
up machines, load out equipment etc.)
 Factory manufacturing capacity (supply and demand)
 Production scrap rates and material wastage
 Process and line speeds
 Testing and calibration
 Requirements for factory joints
 Cable storage facilities and capacity
 Revenue and profit margins
 Logistics
 Jointer training

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 9 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Many of these parameters are commercially sensitive and precise data is not in the public domain
nor divulged by cable manufacturers or raw material suppliers.

Edif ERA took a practical approach to determining the relative costs of standard and extra-large
cables by requesting general rather than precise commercial information. A number of leading
export cable manufacturers were asked the following questions:

 What is the upper limit of your current submarine cable factories for 3 core cables regarding
conductor size and system voltage?
 If you have plans to make large 3-core cables in the future and if so over what timescale?
 What would be the relative cost of a 3 core cable compared to 3 single core cables?
 What would be the limiting factors on installation, e.g. load out, vessel size?

The cable makers responses received are detailed in Appendix A.

With regard to manufacturing capability, this is summarised in Table 2.

Table 2 Cable maker’s capabilities to manufacture large 3 core subsea cables

Manufacturer Cross sectional area (mm2)

3-core 220kV 3-core 400kV

A 2500 1600

B 1800 -

C 1600 1400

D 1600 1600

The four manufacturers contacted were as expected extremely reluctant to provide any detailed
information on the costs of cables so Edif ERA has developed raw material cost models for 132kV
and 275kV 3-core cables having either copper or aluminium conductors. Whilst cable costs will
increase when overhead recovery and profit factors are applied it can be assumed that the same
overhead rates and profit will be applied for different sizes of three core cables over the voltage
range 132kV to 275kV so comparisons between raw material costs are valid. The raw material
models developed have been further validated by comparing the predicted cable weights derived in
the models with published data for smaller 3-core 132kV and 275kV cables.

From the Table 1 the agreed base case was a 3 core 132kV cable having 800mm 2 copper conductors.
The raw material costs of 275kV cables having copper and aluminium conductors are compared with
that of the base case in Figure 1.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 10 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

200%
180%
160%
Increase over base case

140%
120%
100%
Cu
80%
Al
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Cross sectional area (mm2)

Figure 1 Cost increase over base case (132kV) Vs Al and Cu conductor size for a 275kV cable

From Figure 1 a 275kV cable having 2000mm2 copper conductors costs 140% more than the base
case and a similar cable with aluminium conductors costs 50% more.

Cable makers were unwilling to provide purchase costs of cable: they regard selling prices as
commercially sensitive and will flex their selling prices depending on factory capacity; also prices will
be lower if they want to win the contract and higher if they do not. The only way forward was for
Edif ERA to use the raw material cost model together with our knowledge of overhead recovery
rates and profits to estimate the purchase prices of the 3 cables under consideration as follows:

 132kV 800mm2 3 core cable: £517/m

 220kV 1000mm2 3 core cable: £730/m
 275kV 1600mm2 3 core cable: £1,243/m

These values have been used in Excel model that accompanies this report.

3.2 Installation Capabilities and Costs

Edif ERA asked installers the following questions:

As an installer we would be interested to know your viewpoints, for example:

Do you consider current installation vessels and equipment can handle the larger designs?

What issues you think may hinder extra-large cable installation with current technology and
methods?

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 11 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

We have received one detailed response from a cable installer. This is contained in Appendix B. In
addition Edif ERA has also undertaken a literature search on the capacity of Subsea Cable Installation
Vessels (see Table 3). The largest vessel has a capacity of 10,000te and most have capacities
between 4,600te and 7,000te.

Table 3 Maximum tonnage of subsea cable installation vessels

Operator Vessel Total Cable

capacity (te)

Jan de Nul Isaac Newton 10000

Jan de Nul JDN8625 4000

VBMS Ndurance 5000

VBMS Ndeavor 2000

VBMS Stemat Spirit 4600

Global Marine Cable Innovator 7000

Global Marine C.S.Sovereign 4600

Global Marine Networker 750

Nexans C/S Nexans Skagerrak 7000

Van Oord Nexus 5000

A2SEA A/S Atlantic Carrier 500

Orange Marine Pierre de Fermat 2000

Deepocean Maersk Connector 7000

The cable manufacturers point out that the capacity of the installation vessel is a limiting factor in
installation. It is therefore instructive to examine the weights of large three core cables and compare
these with the capacity of the installation vessels. These are shown in Table 4.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 12 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 4 Cable weights for large 3-core cables (kg/m)

132kV 275kV
2
CSA (mm ) Cu Al Cu Al
800 78 61 101 84
1000 90 68 112 90
1200 102 74 125 97
1400 110 79 133 102
1600 120 84 143 107
1800 130 89 154 112
2000 140 94 164 118
2500 162 106 186 129

The vessel with the largest capacity has an upper limit of 150kg/m for the cable weight and can
accommodate a maximum cable diameter of 350mm. From Table 4 this means that the upper limit
for 275kV 3 core cables is 1600 mm2 for three core cables with copper conductors. This upper limit
could well be lower for vessels that have lower cable weight tonnage capacity. Cables with
aluminium conductors having cross sections up to 2500mm2 can be accommodated. Further
discussions with installers are necessary to establish whether a mixed conductor design can be used
where the majority of the cable has aluminium conductors and the cable at each end of the circuit
has copper conductors. (See Section 3.3).

From the cable weights in Table 3 and the installation vessels in Table 4 the maximum length of
cable that a number of installation vessels can accommodated has been calculated in Table 5.

Table 5 Three core cable 275kV lengths (km) accommodated by various installation vessels

CSA 4600te capacity 7000te capacity

(mm2) Cu Al Cu Al
800 46 55 70 84
1000 41 51 62 78
1200 37 48 56 72
1400 34 45 52 69
1600 32 43 49 66
1800 - 41 - 62
2000 - 39 - 59
2500 - 36 - 54

With regard to installation costs there are two components, the vessel cost and an installation cost
that varies with the length of the cable.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 13 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

As well as the weight of the cable, one restriction for the length of cable than can be loaded onto a
vessel and laid is the capacity of the vessel carousel (cable turntable).

Referring back to Table 4, the larger tonnage capacity vessels will generally have larger carousels or
even two carousels (one above deck and one below deck/ hold). In simple terms the volume
available for cable is dependent on the carousel barrel (inner) diameter and outer diameter, and
height. The barrel is normally designed to be expanded to suit cable MBR that can also reduce
volume and cable length.

The volume of cable that can be loaded into the carousel will still be restricted by the vessel weight
restriction for cable laying. Hence it is possible to exceed the cable laying weight restriction with
cables loaded to the volume capacities of carousels.

Edif ERA looked at a number of vessel scenarios for extra-large cables to get a picture of the limits
for cable volume. The scenarios are based on the worst case 275kV, 2000mm sq parameters, e.g.
largest and heaviest cable.

A combination of Edif ERA discussions with European cable manufactures during this project, and
the dimensions quoted in the Southampton University report, a worst case 275kV cable is 295mm
diameter and 164kg/m weight (Cu conductor). MBR is also assumed to be >4.5m.

Edif ERA created a simple spreadsheet tool for cable coiling volume based on the aforementioned
275kV cable parameters and dimensions taken directly from publically available vessel data sheets,
as well as assuming as close to a 100% carousel utilisation as is achievable.

For a 10 ton laying vessel approximately 61km of the extra-large cable can be accommodated, both
within the carousel volume and below the maximum cable laying weight. Therefore for the 20km
base case export cable length used in the model for this report, the required extra-large cable can
easily be accommodated in one campaign.

A leading subsea cable installer was sent the cable parameters and their own calculations for the
vessel used in this study correlated well with the Edif ERA numbers.

Therefore for wind farms with three core export cable lengths requiring vessel installation, the same
number of installation campaigns will be required for export lengths approximately ≤61km for both
base case (132kV and 220kV) and extra-large (275kV) cable sizes. This assumes use of a 10 ton or
greater vessel.

In a previous study carried out some years ago, the variable installation cost was estimated to be
£500/m excluding vessel and survey costs. Whilst these costs will now be higher, it is reasonable to
assume that they will be same for the base case and two larger cables under consideration in this
study.

Vessel costs are notoriously variable depending on their availability and the time of year. Cable
laying is performed in campaigns, governed by the length of the cable that can be carried on the

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 14 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

vessel (as discussed earlier), achievable lay rate and weather windows. Edif ERA were recently
involved in an export cable repair which was delayed for a number of months due to weather.
Another factor is whether the cable laying vessel needs to return to the factory to reload or whether
it can be supported by barges. Large 3-core cables will mean a reduced choice of vessel and may
require additional joints so these vessels will cost more than the base case.

We estimate that for the case of the larger 220kV and 275kV cables we would expect the vessel
costs to be at least 10% higher than the 132kV 800mm2 base case.

3.3 Mixed Conductor Systems

Edif ERA have carried out continuous current ratings for key export cable installation for the base
case 220kV and extra-large case 275kV 3-core cables, both Aluminium (Al) and copper (Cu)
conductor options.

The results are presented in Table 6 where Edif ERA has carried out thermal current rating
calculations in accordance with the methods set out in BS IEC 60287. The ratings in J-tubes have
been determined in accordance with the basic methods set out in ERA Report No 88-0108 (1988)
and further developments by Edif ERA to account for wind speed in J-tube rating calculations. Note
the wind speed used for this study is 8m/s. The calculations have been carried out using
spreadsheets developed by Edif ERA.

There has been debate within the industry that the IEC factors due armour losses are somewhat
conservative: in the calculations shown in Table 6 the armour loss contributions have therefore
been reduced to 20% to reflect this.

Table 6 Continuous current ratings for 3-core subsea cables

Current rating (A)

Condition 220kV 220kV 275kV 2000mm2 275kV 2000mm2

1000mm2 Cu 1000mm2 Al Cu (Milliken) Al (Milliken)

Sea bed 969 820 1208 1061

HDD* Landfall 728 615 874 773

J tube, solar only 979 837 1231 1098

J tube, wind + solar 1116 954 1251 1251

* Horizontal Directional Drilling

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 15 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Some of these calculations are consistent with carried out by Southampton University1 in that the
thermal pinch point is the landfall HDD condition. This suggests that a cable copper conductor could
be used for the HDD section and a cable with aluminium conductors be used for the seabed and J
tube sections of the circuit.

Subsequent to the release of Issue 1 of this report Edif ERA have rerun rating calculations for the
132kV 800mm2 3-core copper conductor cable and compared them with the results obtained by
Southampton University. We find good agreement for the buried sea bed and FE model approach
but obtain a higher rating for the J tube condition: we found a continuous current rating of 868A
whilst Southampton calculated this to be 681A. Discussions have been held between Edif ERA and
Southampton and Edif ERA has found an error in Southampton University’s calculation so we now
have agreement in the cable rating for the J tube condition.

From Table 6 a 220kV system would consist of a 3-core cable with 1000mm2 copper conductors at
the HDD landfall section, and 1000mm2 aluminium conductors for the rest of the circuit. At 275kV
the combination would be cables with 2000mm2 copper conductors and either 2000mm2 or possibly
1800 mm2 aluminium conductors. We would expect the HDD landfall section to be 1km in length, so
for the agreed circuit length of 20km the cable with aluminium conductors would be 19km in length,
with the last km in the J tube.

Three of the four cable manufacturers contacted have confirmed their capability to produce such
mixed conductor systems, including transition joints between the two conductor materials.

Edif ERA would recommend that reliability analysis is performed in future to assess the impact of
additional conductor connections in the export cable circuit.

3.4 Energy losses

The energy losses for 3-core cables, again with a reduced factor for armour losses, have been
derived from the current rating calculations discussed earlier and are shown in Table 7.

1 th
Southampton University Report 15242-RE2-v6 dated 19 November 2015

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 16 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 7 Power losses for 3-core cables

Total Losses per Cable (W/m)

Condition 220kV 220kV 275kV 275kV

1000mm2 Cu 1000mm2 Al 2000mm2 Cu 2000mm2 Al

Sea bed 106 104 125 121

Landfall 59 60 66 70

J tube, solar only 108 108 130 130

J tube, wind + solar 140 140 167 167

For the projected scenario of 1km HDD Landfall/18km sea bed/1km J tube the total losses for the
220kV and 275kV options are 2,198kW and 2,594kW respectively. Current wholesale energy prices
have been indicated by Ofgem to be £55/MWh. This figure has been used to calculate cost of losses
per year for 50% and 100% operation in Table 8.

Table 8 Annual costs of losses based on 50% and 100% operation

Operational period Losses on 220 kV System (£k) Losses on 275 kV System (£k)

50% 530 625

100% 1,059 1,249

The power losses have also been calculated where the load in each section is limited to the
maximum circuit load, i.e., the landfall rating. These are shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Power losses for 3-core cables (limited load)

Total Losses per Cable (W/m)

Condition 132kV 220kV 220kV 275kV 275kV

800mm2 Cu 1000mm2 Cu 1000mm2 Al 2000mm2 Cu 2000mm2 Al

Sea bed 53.7* 63.3 61.4 71.7 69.8

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 17 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Landfall 53.7* 59.7 67.6 67.6 66.6

J tube, solar only 53.7* 63.3 71.7 71.7 69.8

J tube, wind + 63.3 61.4 71.7 69.8

solar

*Based on Rx value provided by Southampton University and current values calculated by Edif ERA

For the projected scenario of 1km HDD Landfall/18km sea bed/1km J tube the total losses for the
220kV and 275kV options under limited load are 1,248kW and 1,399kW respectively. Current
wholesale energy prices have been indicated by Ofgem to be £55/MWh. This figure has been used to
calculate cost of losses per year for 50% and 100% operation in Table 12.

Table 10 Annual costs of losses based on 50% and 100% operation at limited load

Operational period Losses on 220 kV System (£k) Losses on 275 kV System (£k)

50% 300 337

100% 601 674

3.5 Charging Current and Reactive Compensation

The capacitive current of a cable depends on the applied voltage and the capacitance of the cable.

As the voltage withstand of the cable rises, the thickness of the insulation also increases and as a
result the capacitance of the cable also increases.

At the critical cable length, the cable current rating is completely consumed by the capacitive current
and no active power can flow through the cable.

Shunt reactive power compensation installed along the cable route can rectify this issue.

Reactive power surplus in any operating condition causes a power-frequency voltage rise, not only at
the cable terminations but also at adjacent nodes in the grid.

In normal operating conditions, a voltage step of 3% is allowed while connecting or disconnecting a

cable for a typical installation.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 18 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

To keep voltages within acceptable margins, reactive power compensation is usually necessary. This
compensation can be achieved using shunt reactors, typically installed at both ends of a cable,
and/or by the installation of Static Var Compensators.

The amount and location of shunt compensation influences the voltage profile along the cable.

Theoretically, uniformly distributed shunt compensation may produce the best voltage profile, but
at a high cost. The external system also plays a role.

Calculation for alternative ratios of compensation for 132kV 800mm2, 220kV 1000mm2 and 275kV
2000mm2 cases are presented in Tables 11, 12 and 13.

Table 11 Compensation calculations for the 132kV base case

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 19 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 12 Compensation calculations for 220kV 1000mm2 cable

Cable Compensation
Length Applied
100 / 0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30
Km Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 54.0 0.0 27.0 27.0 37.1 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9
40 108.0 0.0 53.0 53.0 74.2 31.8 31.8 31.8 31.8
60 165.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 113.4 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6
80 226.0 0.0 107.0 107.0 151.9 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1
100 293.0 0.0 135.0 135.0 192.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5
120 355.0 0.0 163.0 163.0 236.6 101.4 101.4 101.4 101.4
140 192.5 192.5 280.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0
160 222.0 222.0 326.2 139.8 139.8 139.8 139.8
180 253.0 253.0 157.2 157.2 157.2
200 285.0 285.0 174.7 174.7 174.7
220 330.0 330.0 192.1 192.1 192.1
Cable
Length Power Received Maximum Received Current

100/0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30 100/0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30

km MW MW MW MW kA kA kA kA
0 314.37 314.37 314.37 314.37 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.825
20 256.56 285.60 272.49 288.42 0.673 0.750 0.715 0.757
40 198.49 251.84 230.57 262.39 0.521 0.661 0.605 0.689
60 139.92 221.05 189.42 238.16 0.367 0.580 0.497 0.625
80 80.55 190.26 147.85 213.27 0.211 0.499 0.388 0.560
100 20.16 160.46 103.23 190.14 0.053 0.421 0.271 0.499
120 0.00 130.66 67.56 169.99 0.000 0.343 0.177 0.446
140 102.20 27.51 149.22 0.268 0.000 0.392
160 74.11 0.00 130.78 0.195 0.343
180 47.36 107.30 0.124 0.282
200 21.57 83.98 0.057 0.220

220 0.00 60.32 0.000 0.158

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 20 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 13 Compensation calculations for 275kV 2000mm2 cable

Cable Compensation
Length Applied
100 / 0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30
Km Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar Mvar
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 102.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 71.4 30.6 34.0 34.0 34.0
40 204.0 0.0 102.0 102.0 142.8 61.2 68.0 68.0 68.0
60 306.0 0.0 153.0 153.0 214.2 91.8 102.0 102.0 102.0
80 409.0 0.0 204.5 204.5 286.3 122.7 136.3 136.3 136.3
100 511.0 0.0 255.5 255.5 357.7 153.3 170.3 170.3 170.3
120 307.0 307.0 429.8 184.2 204.6 204.6 204.6
140 358.0 358.0 238.6 238.6 238.6
160 409.0 409.0 272.6 272.6 272.6
180 470.0 470.0 313.3 313.3 313.3
200 522.0 522.0 348.0 348.0 348.0
220 574.0 574.0 382.6 382.6 382.6
Cable
Length Power Received Maximum Received Current

100/0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30 100/0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30

km MW MW MW MW kA kA kA kA

0 538.23 538.23 538.23 538.23 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

20 433.59 484.74 464.31 501.70 0.910 1.018 0.975 1.053

40 328.23 431.21 390.24 465.17 0.689 0.905 0.819 0.977

60 221.44 377.67 315.94 428.54 0.465 0.793 0.663 0.900

80 112.41 324.61 241.54 392.48 0.236 0.682 0.507 0.824

100 0.00 271.07 166.33 355.71 0.001 0.569 0.349 0.747

120 218.01 90.83 319.46 0.458 0.191 0.671

140 164.47 0.00 282.45 0.345 0.000 0.593

160 110.93 245.35 0.233 0.515

180 67.45 221.63 0.142 0.465

200 14.91 185.62 0.031 0.390

220 0.00 149.13 0.000 0.313

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 21 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Further information of typical export cable installations in use today are as follows

London Array – 53.5km

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/london-array-united-kingdom-uk14.html

Gwynt y Mor – 21.3 km

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/gwynt-y-m%C3%B4r-united-kingdom-uk09.html

Sheringham Shoal – 22 km

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/sheringham-shoal-united-kingdom-uk27.html

Walney – 43.7 km

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/walney-phase-2-united-kingdom-uk32.html

3.5.1 Reactive Compensation Costs

The shunt reactor and GIS substation inputs to costings are given in Tables 14 and 15.

Table 14 Shunt reactor costs

Voltage Base Size Onshore Cost Offshore Cost

(kV) (Mvar) (£M) (£M)

33 40 1.4 1.5

132 50 3.0 3.2

220 100 3.6 3.9

275 150 3.8 4.0

400 200 4.0 4.2

The maximum individual shunt reactor size is 250Mvar. For higher Values of Mvar there would be an
increase of 20% per additional reactor.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 22 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 15 GIS substation costs

Voltage Onshore Cost Offshore Cost

(kV) (£M) (£M)

33 0.4 0.5

132 1.1 1.2

220 2.1 2.3

275 2.5 2.8

400 3.5 3.9

It is assumed that only one switch bay will be required for reactive compensation at each location.
i.e. each additional reactor, if required, will connect to the same switchgear.

The cost of a mid-point platform is estimated at £15million, which increases with size and number of
reactors.

From the inputs above, the costs of reactive compensation for a variety of alternatives have been
calculated as a function of cable length in Tables 16, 17 and 18 for the three cable cases under
consideration.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 23 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 16 Reactive compensation costs (£million) for 132kV 3-core 800mm2 cable

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 24 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 17 Reactive compensation costs (£million) for 220kV 3-core 1000mm2 cable

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 25 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 18 Reactive compensation costs (£million) for 275kV 3 core 2000mm2 cable

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 26 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

From Tables 16 to 18 it can be seen that Mid-point compensation is uneconomic even for extremely
long cable circuits. This is due to the estimated £15m cost of the additional platform necessary to
house the equipment.

A comparison of the costs for different ratios of reactive power compensation for the two large
cables compared to the base case is given in Table 19.

Table 19 Reactive power compensation cost comparison over base case

220kV 1000mm2 copper 275kV 2000 mm2 copper

Length
(km) 100/0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30 100/0 50/50 70/30 30/30/30

20 38% 42% 49% 17% 59% 61% 68% 25%

40 35% 39% 49% 16% 58% 60% 69% 24%

60 30% 37% 50% 14% 72% 59% 72% 24%

80 26% 34% 51% 14% 70% 56% 88% 23%

100 44% 33% 52% 13% 89% 76% 90% 23%

120 40% 31% 55% 12% 74% 93% 22%

140 29% 67% 11% 73% 22%

160 28% 69% 10% 71% 30%

180 45% 9% 72% 31%

200 44% 8% 91% 31%

220 54%

There is a range of percentage cost increases for reactive compensation over the base case for both
large cables.

The high reactive power compensation costs for long cable lengths suggest that consideration
should also be given to HVDC cables as an alternative, but this is outside the scope of this study.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 27 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

3.6 Power Transmission Limitations

3.6.1 Ferranti Effect

Long transmission cables draws a substantial quantity of charging current. If the cable is open
circuited or very lightly loaded at the receiving end, the voltage at receiving end can increase to a
greater voltage than sending end due to capacitive reactance, this is known as Ferranti Effect. Both
capacitance and inductance are responsible for this effect. The capacitance is small in short cable but
significant in medium or long cables. The voltage rise is proportional to the square of the line length.

Figure 2 Charging capacitance

The resistance is small compared to the reactance of the cable; therefore the resistance can be
neglected. Using the π-model, VS = VR - VL, as the circuit is open circuit, VS = VR – (ICR + ICjL), i.e. the
receiving end voltage is greater than the sending end voltage, known as the Ferranti Effect.

When the load current is increased, the resultant current lags due to the inductive voltage drop;
therefore the receiving end voltage is less than the sending end under full load conditions.

The Ferranti Effect can be calculated using the following equation:

Where:
VR is the voltage at the receiving end.
VS is the voltage at the sending end
C is the cable capacitance
L is the cable inductance

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 28 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Voltage rise due to the Ferranti effect rise for 220kV and 275kV cables as a function of length is
shown in Figure 3. The limiting factor is the voltage variation limit of +/- 10% at the point of
connection.

1.40

1.30

1.20
Voltage Rise (pu)

1.10
220kV 1000mm2
275kV 2000mm2

1.00

0.90

0.80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cable Length (km)

Figure 3 Voltage rise vs length for large 3 core cables due to Ferranti Effect

From Figure 2 the limiting length for large 3-core cables due to the Ferranti Effect is 120km and
150km for 220kV and 275 kV cable respectively.

The shunt reactors required for reactive compensation purposes may help in reducing this voltage,
thus extending the limiting length due to the Ferranti Effect.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 29 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

3.6.2 Harmonics/Temporary overvoltages

Temporary overvoltages (TOVs) are oscillatory phase to ground or phase to phase overvoltages at a
given location of a relatively long duration (seconds or minutes), this is likely to be un-damped or
weakly damped IEEE Standard 1313.1-1996.

Overvoltage conditions can cause problems on a transmission system through: insulation failures,
overheating or mis-operation. Increasing the magnetic flux in the magnetic cores of equipment such
as transformers and shunt reactors, this produces heat in the transformer cores, and can cause the
equipment to fail. Mis-operation of equipment such as surge arresters causing short circuits, or
causing circuit breakers to fail interrupting power flow.

Resonance is a special concern with cables as they lower the system resonant frequencies. Under
normal switching conditions, transient voltages may be damped.

However, where there is an excitation current at a resonant frequency, overvoltages may be

sustained for several seconds, damaging protective devices such as surge arresters and other
equipment. In general system configuration, equipment characteristics, protection methods and
operating procedures all affect TOV. Common causes of TOV are: system faults, load rejection, line
energisation, line dropping/fault clearing, and reclosing, and transformer energisation.

TOV can be caused by parallel resonance on a system with long HVAC cables:

The inductance of the shunt reactors and the distributed capacitance of the cables form a parallel
resonant circuit.

This is usually characterised by large impedance at the resonant frequencies. Large current may
circulate through the resonant inductance and capacitance producing higher transient voltages.

The most onerous condition is a long length of cable combined with low system strength.
Consideration of the length of cable in the design phase is key to avoiding issues in this case, as can
be seen from Figure 4.

The first resonant frequency due to the interaction of the cable capacitance with the AC system
impedance at minimum and maximum fault levels.

The limiting factor for harmonic distortion purposes was considered as 250Hz (5 th harmonic) as
distortion at that harmonic order is both present at a high level on the transmission system and is a
notable frequency generated by power electronic converters, particularly on wind turbines. A
resonance at or below this frequency will require the grid compliance of the generation to be
significantly more complicated.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 30 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

The limiting factor for temporary overvoltages was considered to be 150Hz (3 rd harmonic). Below
this frequency the overvoltage magnitudes could become a very significant issue.

Mitigation measures can be implemented to counter the effects of the harmonic resonance or
temporary overvoltages.

For harmonic mitigation purposes, AC harmonic filters can be installed. The effectiveness of these
filters in reducing harmonic voltage distortion due to the harmonic resonance is dependent on the
particular network operating condition and sources of harmonic current distortion (e.g. wind turbine
converters). As harmonic filters are added the harmonic resonance would typically reduce further
(for an inductive AC transmission system) although this can be mitigated somewhat by the combined
use of shunt reactors and AC harmonic filters. If the particular configuration of AC transmission
network and offshore wind system is favourable then it may be possible to extend the length of the
cable. It should be noted that as harmonic resonance order reduces the mitigation becomes more
difficult and more expensive.

The mitigation of temporary overvoltages is also highly dependent on the configuration of the
systems. This is discussed in detail in the EDIF ERA report for EirGrid “INVESTIGATION INTO
MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR 400/220KV CABLE ISSUES” http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-
files/library/EirGrid/Investigation-into-Mitigation-Techniques-for-Cable-Issues.pdf.

As with harmonic resonance issues, mitigation measures may allow some extension of the length of
the cable (e.g. by the use of shunt reactors) but it becomes more difficult and expensive the lower
the order of the resonance.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 31 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

20.0

19.0

18.0

17.0

16.0

15.0

14.0

13.0

12.0
Harmonic Order

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0
Harmonic DIstortion Boundary
5.0

4.0
TOV Boundary
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cable Length (km)

Min Fault Level Max Fault Level

Figure 4 Harmonic resonance of 220kV 1000mm2 cable at maximum and minimum fault level

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 32 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

From Figure 4 the maximum cable length with regard to harmonic distortion is between 60 and
70km; the maximum cable length with regard to temporary overvoltages is between 110km and
120km.

3.7 Availability and Loss of Energy

Calculation of availability data is reliant on accurate failure rate data and hence Mean Time Between
Failure (MTBF) figures, as well as repair data. Information regarding the failure and hence reliability
of export cables used for offshore wind applications is lacking in the public domain. This is because
failures are commercially sensitive and there is a general underreporting of such information. All
figures presented in this section of the report are based on publically available failure information.
However the accuracy of the data is questionable and some explanations are provided below. As a
general recommendation outside the scope of this project the industry requires an up to date
subsea cable failure exercise to be carried out and ‘lessons learned’, especially given the
proliferation of XLPE systems at the higher subsea voltage levels.

Edif ERA has carried out a number of physical dissections and root cause analysis of failed export
cables and accessories from wind farms over the last two years, the findings of which are
confidential and not publicised. Thus it is likely that the full extent of issues experienced on wind
farms in that time, and hence failure rates are not known at present with a high level of confidence.

For a large proportion of Industry RAMS type studies for offshore wind farms Cigré technical
brochure TB379 is often cited as one of the few studies that has gathered subsea cable failure from a
number of operational sources.

Even at the time of study there were reported subsea cable data limitations as follows:

1. There was insufficient data to report failure rate on accessories. Furthermore, Edif ERA
considers it is imperative to understand the failure mode and root cause (materials, workmanship,
manufacture, installation, service conditions, third party etc.) to assess the overall impact on system
reliability.

2. 14% of cases were of an unknown failure

3. 33% of reported cases were for ‘other’ reasons

4. No failure statistics are reported for AC 3-core radial barrier, or non-radial barrier cables at
and above 220kV and 110kV respectively.

5. The reports states that it expects there was an underreporting failure data relating to key
accessories related to long subsea connections including factory joints, transition joints and
terminations.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 33 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

6. In the years 1994 to 2005 only ~950km of AC 3 core XLPE radial barrier cables are reported
as installed in the 110-219kV voltage range. None were greater than 219kV.

7. Only a total number of four AC XLPE faults were reported between 1990 to 2005.
None of the AC XLPE failures reported in 1990 to 2005 are attributed to an accessory.

9. Only one reply to the Cigré questionnaire was received for a subsea cable in the UK. As a
comparison 11 responses were from Norway; Edif ERA considers it important to know the
proportion of solid dielectrics for each region and this information is not stated in the report.

Since the Cigré study improvements in cable engineering such as dielectric raw materials as well as
cable protection methods, survey, vessel equipment and DP, condition monitoring, as some
examples, would notionally improve failure statistics for subsea applications. However as voltage
increase as for the extra-large case the decrease in critical defect size that could potentially cause a
failure in for example the dielectric and jointing process, and the need to maintain jointing areas to a
higher cleanliness level could potentially increase the rate. Furthermore the increased weight and
size of extra-large cables could influence failure rates due to influence of their mechanical properties
on the vessel installation and burial process.

Furthermore as offshore wind farms mature export cable failure data predominated by
manufacturing, handling, installation, commissioning and early life third party faults may also be
influenced by age related mechanisms which are not considered in detail in current RAMS studies.

The best failure data currently available is shown in Table 20. The failure rate data was obtained
from a Siemens Round 3 wind Farm reliability model for the Hornsea project. It’s one of the few
sources that lists failure rates for array cables and export cables individually. Note that a 0.1 failures
per 100km per year failure rate would be used to calculate the MTBF for the export cable. The
array cable rate is higher at 0.84 on account of a higher number of pull-in operations and
termination failures per km of cable compared to the export cable which potentially increases the
failure rate.

Table 20 Cable failure rates per 100km

Cable in-service fault rates Cable faults per 100 km per year

Array cable 0.84

Subsea export cable 0.10

Land export cable 0.05

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 34 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

From discussions with offshore wind farm operators the effect of an export cable being out of
service will be similar to that shown in Table 21. These percentage losses have been used to
determine the loss of output if an export cable fails after the wind farm has begun operation.

Table 21 Effect of one export cable failure on wind farm output

Number of export cables Output reduction due to loss of one export cable %

1 100

2 37

3 20

4 10

In reality the loss of production due to the non-availability of an export cable will be affected by the
wind speed throughout the period when the cable is not available. A power curve for a Siemens
3.6MW wind turbine is shown in Table 22.

Table 22 Power curve for 3.6MW wind turbine

Wind Speed Power Wind Speed Power Wind Speed Power

m/s kW m/s kW m/s kW

1 0 6 507 11 3082

2 0 7 824 12 3488

3 0 8 1243 13 3591

4 131 9 1778 14 3600

5 276 10 2432 15 3600

Estimated costs and repair times for offshore export cables are compared with other types of cable
in Table 21.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 35 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Table 23 Estimated costs and repair times

Cable type Material Cost Repair times

(days)

Offshore array cable £140,000 10

Onshore export cable £40,000 12

Offshore export cable £225,000 21

The above costs exclude other time factors such as time to get spares, mobilisation and waiting for
weather. Edif ERA has experience of a recent 3 core export cable repair where the rate for
vessel/crew hire per day in UK waters was approximately £100k.

4. Cost Modelling
As part of the project an Excel cost model [Ref: 3 Core Export Cable Cost Model 1.3] has been
produced, populated with the data generated in this report. A number of fields have been left
unlocked to permit users to input their own data. From this model the annual costs for installation,
losses and failures have been compiled in Table 24 to enable comparison of the two options with the
base case.

Table 24 Annual costs comparison from Excel model

Cable Annual costs (£) Saving over

base case (%)
Installation Losses Failures Total

132kV 800mm2 3,271,000 776,180 1,353,564 5,400,744 -

220kV 1000mm2 2,770,000 608,560 1,492,099 4,870,659 9.8%

275kV 1600mm2 2,083,000 344,462 1,838,772 4,266,234 21.0%

Compared to the 132kV base case, Table 24 shows that there is a 9% saving for the 220kV cable and
a 21% saving for the 275kV cable.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 36 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

5. Fatal Flaw study

One of the aims of this project was to asses each output of each tasks and determine if it constituted
a ‘fatal flaw’ for extra-large cables. A fatal flaw is defined as any task output that is deemed to
preclude the feasibility of developing the use of the technology, which may be technical or economic
in nature. Table 25 Summarises this study.

Table 25 Fatal Flaw Study summary

Task Output Fatal Flaw?

Cable Manufacture There are European No

manufacturers capable of
producing three core extra-
large subsea cables. These may
need to be type tested to prove
the designs, which may extend
commercialisation of such
cables.

Cable Accessories Accessories for three core No

extra-large cable systems are
technically feasible (field joints,
terminations etc.), including
transition joints. However
reliability is unknown until
service life experience is built
up. Additionally Type Testing
of the joints would be required.

Cable Installation Export cable laying vessels are No

capable of handling large three (although
core cables upto ~1600mm² for vessel
Cu, and 2,500mm² for Al in modification
lengths of around 50km for the may be
larger vessels. Vessels may required for
require modification to handle larger Cu
extra-large cable weights for Cu conductor
conductors >1600mm². sizes).

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 37 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Reactive compensation For the extra-large case No

(charging current) compensation configurations
will allow for ~100km three
core export length.

Shunt reactor and GIS Euipment costs for the extra- No

substation costs large case are higher, but
depending on the project it can
be compensated by possible
installation and through life
cost savings

Ferranti Effect Maximum cable voltage rise for No.

extra-large cables ‘Ferranti
Effect’ is not an issue for export
circuit lengths <120km

6. Conclusions
 A fatal flaw study has shown that there is no fundamental reason to prevent extra-large
cables being used for offshore wind farm applications.
 Three cable manufacturers advise that their upper conductor size limit for 220kV cables
ranges from 1600mm2 to 1800mm2. A fourth claims their upper limit to be 2500mm2.
 Information from subsea cable installers indicates that the upper limit for 3-core cables
having copper conductors is 1600mm2, whilst cable with 2500mm2 aluminium conductors
can be accommodated.
 For a 10 ton vessel approximately 61km of extra-large 275kV cable can be loaded.
 Combining the costs of installation, losses and failures results in a 9% saving for the 220kV
cable and a 21% saving for the 275kV cable, compared to the 132kV base case.
 Mixed systems where copper conductors are used at the thermal pinch point and aluminium
conductors are used elsewhere are viable and type tested solutions are available from
several manufacturers
 The Ferranti effect is only significant for cable lengths greater than 120 km
 Harmonic distortion is only a factor for cable lengths greater than 60km
 Temporary overvoltage effects are only an issue cable lengths greater than 120 km
 Reactive compensation costs are higher for both large cables compared to the base case.
 The high reactive power compensation costs for long cable lengths suggest that
consideration should also be given to HVDC cables as an alternative, but this is outside the
scope of this study.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 38 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 39 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Appendix A
Responses from Cable Makers

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 40 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

A.1. Manufacturer A

We can manufacture cables of 1600mm² at system voltage 220kV and greater, i.e. 420kV three core
cables in service. Detailed design and limitations are defined during tender stage.

Normally it is more cost effective to supply and install one three core cable compared to three single
core cables but it may depend on distance and ambient conditions. Vessel loading limitation to be
determined when the site conditions are known (mix of vessels is rather common depending on
depth etc.).

We have manufactured and tested 2500mm² three core cables at 220kV. Developments are of
course continuously ongoing for large cross sections at higher voltages but I cannot mention where
we are here.

To joint cables with conductors with different material (Cu to Al) is not an issue at all and we have
done before.

A.2. Manufacturer B

We are able to produce 3-core cables with large conductors. I would say 3x1600 or 3x1800 is the
upper limit for 3-core cables at 220 kV. In terms of voltage for AC operation 420 kV is the upper limit
but for this type of cable we normally produce them as single core and not 3-core. For single core
cables we would be able to produce conductors up to around 2000mm2. Currently we have
references for 3-core 220 kV up to 3x1200mm2 and 420 kV up to 1x1200mm2.

For 3-core 220kV I would say the current size of cables are within the limitations for production, load
out, transportation and laying of existing facilities/vessels. Even though 3-core 420 kV is feasible I
think the cables will very quickly become so large and heavy that it will limit supply chain and
complicate potential repair operations.

Relative costs between single and three core cable are very difficult to estimate without any
concrete information. Normally both material and installation cost would be higher for single core
design when comparing same conductor cross sections.

A.3. Manufacturer C

Our capability is 1 core cable: 400km per year; 3 core cable: 140km per year based on 132KV 3C
500sqmm

We are capable of making large 3 core cables now; we are able to manufacture 3 core cable up to
220KV 1600sqmm and 400KV 1400sqmm.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 41 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

We have many plans to develop and actually under development for DC XLPE submarine cable as
well as AC cable.

With regard to relative cost, 3 core cables would be expensive but cost effective in the aspects of
cable installation.

There are many factors relating to cable installation e.g. size and weight of cable, coilability of cable,
vessel size. Each cable has different limitation factors based on cable characteristic.

A.4. Manufacturer D

We have experience in manufacturing 3 core cables with conductor cross section up to 1600 mm 2 at
220 kV. Some larger cross sections could be feasible but not convenient owing to skin effect the
corresponding current rating increase would be very limited. We have not experience in
manufacturing 400 kV three core because generally the power rating required at that voltage
exceeds what can be achieved by one three core cable. We could manufacture three core cables
with cross section in the 1000-1200 mm2 range.

The larger cost relative cost of single-core cables is due to the need of a copper armour and higher
installation cost. The answer would be project specific.

The limiting factors on installation include vessel cable storage size, bending radius during
installation, maximum pulling tension (relevant in case of deep water installation).

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 42 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Appendix B
Responses from Installer

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 43 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

B.1. Installer A

Installer A owns and operates a cable installation vessel that can take 10,000 tonne of cable

This subsea cable installation vessel is capable to cope with cable design particulars up to:

- Outer diameter: 350 mm

- weight/meter 150 kg/m

- Flexural rigidity E*I: 100 kNm²

For storing the cable, two carousels can be used. The deck carousel can take up to 7,400tonne,
whilst the below deck carousel can take 5,000tonne with following specifications:

Hold turntable:

Outside diameter [m] (inner side outer wall) 22.860

Inside diameter [m] (outer side inner wall) 4.6

Turntable height [m] 4.5

Capacity [ton] 5,000

Max cable diameter [mm] 350

Max cable weight/meter [kg/m] 150

Flexural rigidity E*I [kNm²] 100

Max MBR [m]* 4

(*) Inner hub can be enlarged by means of a bull ring.

Deck turntable:

Outside diameter [m] (inner side outer wall) 27.3

Inside diameter [m] (outer side inner wall) 8.0

Turntable height [m] 7

Capacity [ton] 7,400

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 44 © ERA Technology Ltd

Edif ERA Report 2016-0350

Commercial-in-Confidence

Max cable diameter [mm] 350

Max cable weight/meter [kg/m] 150

Flexural rigidity E*I [kNm²] 100

Max MBR [m] 4

Whilst a large MBR of the supplied cable could volume restrict the capabilities of the turntables, the
inner hub can always be increased by installing a bull ring. However, there is a maximum MBR that
can be handled and the supplied cable should not exceed certain bending stiffness values as shown
above that could not be derived from the below referenced document.

Ref: EDP3126001/EDP 3126 Final Report V4.docx 45 © ERA Technology Ltd