摘要
为了确定金沙江一期水电外送直流输电系统的运行电压与单回容量,采用的新优化方法首先拟定一期向家坝、溪洛渡工程采用3、4、5回3个直流输电方案,在一较宽电压范围内逐点扫描每个方案的运行电压,通过分析选择各个方案的运行电压及导线截面、分裂型式详细的经济比较3个方案,并从方案的技术可行性、电网的安全稳定性等方面分析论证。结果证明采用3回直流输电方案最为经济,技术上可行。建议金沙江一期水电外送工程采用3回“±800 kV、单回容量6.4 GW”的方案。
It is planed that total 38GW of Jinshajiang hydropower will be transmitted to east China and central China by several HVDC links. There could be several kinds of combination of HVDC voltage and transmitting capacity for each bipole. The destination of this paper is to give the best combination for this project. First, three preliminary power transmission schemes are proposed in this paper. Then the optimal voltage level and conductor size are given through comparing the cost-effectiveness at different voltage, analyzing its sensitivity, and considering the impact on environment. By detailed comparison on average power transmission cost, average power selling price, investment and annual cost, and the needed corridor width among three schemes, it is shown that scheme 1, 3 bipolar HVDC links and each rated at 800 kV and 6.4GW, has the obvious advantage over the others because of a lower cost and significant reduction of land occupation. The technical feasibility and power grid stability of scheme 1 are then analyzed in this paper. By investigation on the development of HVDC equipment, it is shown that although lots of subjects are required to be investigated further, UHVDC transmission rated on 800 kV and 6400MW is technically feasible and engineering practical. The system stability of scheme 1 is also analyzed. It is shown that the system can remain stable after any monopole fault and can recover by tripping several units in sending end after any bipole fault, both in year 2020 and 2015. So, it is concluded that the best scheme for power transmission of Jinshajiang I hydro power plant is 3 bipolar HVDC links and each rated at ±800 kV and 6.4GW.
出处
《高电压技术》
EI
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2006年第9期67-70,共4页
High Voltage Engineering
关键词
特高压
直流输电
电压等级
输送容量
经济比较
UHV
DC transmission
voltage level
transmission capacity
economic comparison
