I have posted on both the PES Linkedin Group and CIGRE, but have not gotten a good answer about grounding HVDC converter stations.
I note that directional drilling is now very advanced, and gas wells are routinely drilled more than 2 km deep, and can turn through a desirable rock formation at depth (normally, this is for "fracking"). Such a well can be drilled for less than $1 million in most cases, and I think it would be highly desirable to use this technology for HVDC ground electrodes. I envision a ground electrode which is ELECTRICALLY INSULATED from the ground down to about one km, and which turns horizontal in an underground saline aquifer (which are found nearly everywhere on Earth at some depth). This method of grounding would eliminate ground currents near the surface, and might well enable a more economical implementation of HVDC projects. Has this been tried anywhere in the world as far as you know? Is there some issue holding this up technically, or is this simply a case of technology momentum?
I note that directional drilling is now very advanced, and gas wells are routinely drilled more than 2 km deep, and can turn through a desirable rock formation at depth (normally, this is for "fracking"). Such a well can be drilled for less than $1 million in most cases, and I think it would be highly desirable to use this technology for HVDC ground electrodes. I envision a ground electrode which is ELECTRICALLY INSULATED from the ground down to about one km, and which turns horizontal in an underground saline aquifer (which are found nearly everywhere on Earth at some depth). This method of grounding would eliminate ground currents near the surface, and might well enable a more economical implementation of HVDC projects. Has this been tried anywhere in the world as far as you know? Is there some issue holding this up technically, or is this simply a case of technology momentum?
I was recently in a workshop on HVDC, and Ramy Azar of SNC-Lavalin said he was aware of no HVDC converter station ground electrode that is deeper than 200 meters anywhere in the word. I think it is obvious why ground currents have been problematic in light of that.
Because of the skin effect, AC currents stay on the surface of the Earth. DC on the other hand goes deep. If DC currents on the order of 10kA (a big converter station) are injected into a saline aquifer 2 km down, it might not even be possible to detect the current at the surface. This method of current return nearly cuts the cost of the needed transmission line in half (because with ground return a single elpipe, cable, or overhead line can move the power, though with far greater magnetic anomalies near unbalanced monopole transmission lines with ground return than would be the case with metallic current return path near the outbound conductor.
I have come to think now that the really high power lines of the HVDC supergrid (>10kA) must always be bipoles, but that for small lines, monopole configurations would be OK, and would save money. For example, a 100 MW substation could power a remote town. To move 100 MW based on a +/-800kV supergrid can be accomplished by a monopole with ground return, which would imply an imbalanced current of only 125 amps. This seems to me to be OK. Such a supergrid would be based on a backbone of underground bipoles designed for high current. Up to 400MW or so, converter stations off of the supergrid main line would be fed by a monopole with ground return, which greatly reduces the cost of the elpipe connector. By taking different small converter stations off the + and - poles of the supergrid, one tries to balance + pole current with - pole currents at all points in the bipolar supergrid but of course with monopolar connectors, the bipole circuit cannot be in balance everywhere.This problem is analogous to the placement of single phase transforners on a three phase power distribution line.
The larger converter stations > 400MW will still be bipoles, but with grounded neutrals. This allows an imbalance of the two poles, which will be used to re-balance the current in the two major bipoles at the point where the +/- 800kV tap into the main loop occurs.
I had this informative interaction with Stig Nilsson on this topic:
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:04 PM
To: Stig Nilsson
Subject: Re: New comment on "HVDC Converter Station Grounding"
From: Roger Faulkner
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 2:06 PM
To: Stig Nilsson
Subject: Re: New comment on "HVDC Converter Station Grounding"
From: Roger Faulkner
The larger converter stations > 400MW will still be bipoles, but with grounded neutrals. This allows an imbalance of the two poles, which will be used to re-balance the current in the two major bipoles at the point where the +/- 800kV tap into the main loop occurs.
I had this informative interaction with Stig Nilsson on this topic:
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:33 AM, Stig Nilsson wrote:
THE NESC prohibits operation with ground return.
stig
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:04 PM
To: Stig Nilsson
Subject: Re: New comment on "HVDC Converter Station Grounding"
I know that, but is it appropriate with a deep electrode that goes into a saline aquifer 2 km down? And I thought they allow 30 minutes of emergency ground return in any case?
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:22 PM, Stig Nilsson wrote:
Deep electrodes have been tried but not in the US but it is still against the code here. And, 30 minutes is not enough.
stig
From: Roger Faulkner
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 2:06 PM
To: Stig Nilsson
Subject: Re: New comment on "HVDC Converter Station Grounding"
Thanks for that Stig. By "deep" do you mean oil well deep? I'm thinking maybe 2 miles or more, with the first shallow mile insulated, then going horizontal in a saline aquifer way down deep. I cannot imagine any serious environmental consequences of doing that. Dale Osborn pointed out to me that the rules against ground return are based on HVAC, where they make sense due to the skin effect, but that DC "dives deep."
On Monday, December 16, 2013 9:47 AM, Stig Nilsson wrote:
The NESC committee has refused to consider any changes so far. Intermountain power project (IPP) has typically 4 A into the ground and is fighting a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
stig
From: Roger Faulkner
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Stig Nilsson
Subject: Re: New comment on "HVDC Converter Station Grounding"
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Stig Nilsson
Subject: Re: New comment on "HVDC Converter Station Grounding"
This is irrational for DC with deep ground return, as you know. Does anyone anywhere use insulated leads for deep grounding into a saline aquifer?
On Monday, December 16, 2013 3:50 PM, Stig Nilsson wrote:
It does not matter if it is irrational or not because the standards apply until changed. It is an issue that has been fought in the US since the early ‘60ies when the private utilities tried to stop the Pacific HVDC Intertie project between Oregon and LA. The pipeline people sued it as a way to block the project. It does not matter that all of the cathodic protection systems already push a lot of current into the ground and that the pipeline companies probably have to corrode bridges etc. when they cross under a bridge with their cathodic protection. They have managed to avoid bringing that to light and to use it against the DC community. But, I am too old to fight windmills.
stig
From: Roger Faulkner
On Monday, December 16, 2013 3:56 PM, Roger Faulkner wrote:
I knew there had to be a back story...thanks for that!
In view of this background (thanks for that, Stig!) It makes ever more sense to try to work with the pipeline folks. I have written several articles recently aimed at this, including one for Arab Construction World and one for Natural Gas & Electricity.
Update July 28, 2014 (this is the Linkedin excange; the last reply by me was a few minutes ago):
Update July 28, 2014 (this is the Linkedin excange; the last reply by me was a few minutes ago):
Your comment has been posted successfully.
Stig
The really high power lines of the HVDC supergrid (>10kA) must always be bipoles, but for small lines, monopole configurations would be OK, and would save money. For example, a 100 MW substation could power a remote town. To move 100 MW based on a /-800kV supergrid can be accomplished by a monopole with ground return, which would imply an imbalanced current of only 125 amps. This seems to me to be OK. Such a supergrid would be based on a backbone of underground bipoles designed for high current. Up to 400MW or so, converter stations off of the supergrid main line would be fed by a monopole with ground return, which greatly reduces the cost of the elpipe connector. By taking different small converter stations off the and - poles of the supergrid, one tries to balance pole current with - pole currents at all points in the bipolar supergrid but of course with monopolar connectors, the bipole circuit cannot be in balance everywhere.This problem is analogous to the placement of single phase transformers on a three phase power distribution line.
The larger converter stations > 400MW will still be bipoles, but with grounded neutrals. This allows an imbalance of the two poles, which will be used to re-balance the current in the two major bipoles at the point where the /- 800kV tap into the main loop occurs.
If the use of shallow grounding electrode is meeting regulation in place, the need for deeper electrode ( extra cost and maintainability issue) is not proven.
However, it could be a good idea for further research.