Enabling the DSO transition - A consultation on the ESO’s approach to Distribution System Operation (2021)

So, for readers  here to whom this is new, what is the distinction between an ESO and a DSO and the existing alphabet soup of organisations we have of BNO, IDNO DNO, suppliers and companies that seem to just process bills but do not know their amp from their elbow, or something like that?


Already we see problems where things that should be trivial  like changing meter tails seems to involve 3 or more organisations, and stories of difficulty fitting isolators and finding out service fuse ratings and so forth that make herding cats look simple.


There are very real looming issues of overload with EV charging and the proposed phase out of gas heating, that none of the above seem able to acknowledge.


I'm not convinced that adding another layer that sounds like pure  admin is helpful and so I'd like some explanation of what we are trying to achieve that needs this, ideally written in very plain English,  rather than something that the Department of Administrative Affairs would be proud of.


I see in the response there is mention of 'soft meshing'  which I assume is a reference to using one trafo to prop up another using bidirectional inversion and DC, in built up areas where substations are within a short distance of one another this may be a practical measure to mitigate the LV  level overload, if not at HV.

If that is true, say so, or at least provide a glossary of terms for the unfamiliar reader.

Then say how well or not it works, because that is also key. As an aside I am not sure this technique is much use for the non-city dweller, where the spacing means that interconnection at LV or even a KV or three, would be prohibitive. Again, numbers would help.


There are many things that should be pushed, like encouraging 3 phase to the house, as some areas, such as WP seem to be doing already, and more generally harmoninsing best practice and exchange of statistics between DNOs but we do not need another organisation for that, just reinforcement of the networks that already exist.

Then there are more advanced options such as uplift of some 230/400 3 phase to 400/690, and we could (god forbid, a foreign idea) even consider 690/1k2 as an interconnect method, or even as a supply to larger sites.

 I may sound negative, but really this needs better explanation of the purpose. More generally, organisations, meetings and so forth are not free, they are a financial burden to someone, and that always needs to be justified.

Unless of course the intention is to merge some of the existing organisations, so the distinctions no longer exist and some folk can be eliminated - and again, if this is on the table it needs to be made clear.

best regards

Mike.

Absolutely first class response Mike!

I tried to read both documents, the response and the consultation, and it was like wading through treacle  so I gave up. While I have a reasonable understanding of the written word I could not work out what they were trying to achieve. Lots of nice pictures and pretty diagrams though.


I totally agree with Mike's comments.


I am currently trying to read  a consultation document that relates to a CO2 pipeline from Frodsham Marshes to somewhere in North Wales so the CO2 from producing Hydrogen from natural gas using all this excess electricity from green sources can be buried in the depleted gas fields off the North Wales coast. Most of the first 50 pages give the definitions of the acronyms etc.  


I am completely confident that in both cases lip service will be paid to any responses and any potential problems identified by the consultation will be ignored until they bite when we will be told they were unforeseen and could not have been identified in advance. 


Am I an old cynic who does not want to see change?


No, I am an old realist who has seen too many  projects fail or cost a fortune while not achieving their original objectives to be hopeful, especially when politicians or their acolytes are involved. I expect that all the large consultancies will be paid a fortune for their work on these projects and will be paid even more to try and sort out the problems they have caused. 


One thing I have learnt over the last 70 odd years is that it is very difficult make things simple and very very easy to make them complicated.

I can see the merits of a 400/690 volt supply in some cases to reduce currents and cable costs. Particularly for large scale lighting when 400 volt lamp ballasts/drivers can be connected phase to neutral, rather than between phases on a 230/400 volt system.

Also for electric motors as the larger sizes have 400 volt windings that may be delta connected on a 230/400 volt system or star connected on a 400/690 volt system.


BTW, a quick question for those who have worked on 440/690 volt systems. What is the ACTUAL voltage ? Is it as described, or does it tend to be 415/720 in practice, just as most nominal 230/400 volt systems tend to be 240/415 in practice.


I see little merit in 690/1k2 volt systems as very limited equipment is available for this voltage, and standard 600/1000 volt SWA cables cant be used.

Transformers could of course be used, but in that case why not use 11KV ? and save the capital cost and the losses in adding another stage of transformation.

To be fair the only place I have seen 690/1k2 up close was in Germany in a large manufacturing site run by Siemens, and there were indeed transformers in a number of odd places. The huge advantage over 11kV is that both sides of the transformer are (well almost) LV and that makes it easier to work with, as cables, switches, contactors, breakers etc. seemed to be nothing extra special, certainly not like we, or they, would have required for full blown HV.

I suspect that they can buy enough to lean on the makers to get a  cables and things normally marked as  600/1000 proof tested and certified for a bit more... It is really unnerving to see what looks like really super weedy cables - 3 phase in 2.5mm doing something like 55kW  instead of 18 and oh the length!  - right to the far end of the hanger and nary a flicker .. Which is why they did it of course...

Their 400/690 was more like 380/660, but then their 230 is really 220 so it is not really a fair test.

In the UK I do not know, I suspect there is not that much 400/690.

My real point is that for interlinking substations that are already spaced apart based on volt drops at 230V, you need more volts to make it work. I realise this is not true in London, where they are so close they can LV mesh, but we do not all live in London.

Mike.

A quick look at this is very disappointing. It seems all this is about money and how to charge consumers much more for less. Half-hour charging has never been mentioned to the Public, and yet seems to be fundamental to these proposals. The issues of supply and overall stability are not really addressed, or the extra supply generation which will be necessary to support electric vehicles and heating. I have estimated we need a 100% reliable 100GW to achieve the "Green Dream" in mid-winter, to replace Gas and fossil fuels. 100GW loosely equates to another 30 nuclear plants, or 1 million turbines of 1MW and 10% of nameplate output, or 300,000 at 30% which is a bit high averaged over a year. There must be supply somehow of the full 150GW total demand somehow, 24/7, otherwise living here in winter will be third-world at best.


This is the fundamental issue that is NOT being addressed, either the Government or the IET. I do not care how the admin works (as long as it does) but I do care very much about the feasibility and price of this electric energy. I have also estimated the cost of tripling our entire electrical infrastructure at £3Trillion, just where is this coming from, and who is going to pay? So far we have just about managed our generating capacity to keep pace with the removal of fossil fuels by changes to lighting (LEDS particularly) and gas backup generation when the wind is low or zero. There have been a couple of near misses of grid failure and many more nail-biting moments. It is ridiculous to change from gas to electric heating at great cost and then run it from gas turbines, even if the overall cost is about the same. The capital cost would be massive for no gain. Building 30 more 3GW nuclear plants in the next 14 years is obviously impossible, building one is appearing more unlikely by the day, and the prototype is still a long way from working.


Fiddling with distribution voltages is unlikely to make a significant difference, it would need all new transformers, even if 11kV cables were suddenly used on 33KV. Again cost, materials, and production capacity would quickly kill the idea. What is needed is an appreciation by the IET Committee concerned, and the wider membership that the plan is from cloud cuckoo land, we have none of the resources available to even contemplate it. Where is the sense of Engineering balance and skill needed to plan this? It is not this proposal which is simply tinkering around the edges of a severe problem Where have I seen that recently too?

To me it reads like a script from Yes Minister. Perhaps we are not meant to be able to understand it at all, but merely knod our heads and vote it through - whatever it is meant to mean.

Remember being in English classes at school and having to read some text then having to write a précis?


Anyone fancy having a go at preparing a précis for this text?

Without seeing the consultation document that this one is responding to, the response by itself is largely meaningless.