April 1, 2025 • 18 mins
The high-voltage sector is moving away from SF6 – but making the switch isn’t as simple as it sounds.
With a growing number of SF6-free solutions available, the challenge now is ensuring they work safely, reliably, and efficiently across the grid. And in this journey, standardization will be the next big step the industry must take to accelerate the energy transition.
Tune in to this insightful episode as we’re joined by our expert guest, Michael Gatzsche, Head of Interrupter and Generator Circuit-Breaker Technology Development at Hitachi Energy, to explore why setting clear standards is absolutely essential for the breakthrough of the eco-efficient technologies.
Hit play to find out why the time to standardize is now.
---
Say hi to Dr. Michael Gatzsche. He is the Head of Interrupter and GCB Technology Development at Hitachi Energy.
He holds a doctorate in electrical engineering from the Technische Universität Dresden in Germany.
He is driven by his passion for learning and contributing his talents and skills to building innovative technology that will pave the way for a brighter future. He thrives in collaborative environments, working alongside a diverse range of experts from engineers and physicists to supply chain experts and communicators.
Outside of work, he finds great joy in traveling, visiting loved ones in Germany and Portugal. Michael also values the importance of balance in life.
---
Make sure to follow us and click the notification button to get updates on new episodes.
Visit www.hitachienergy.com/powerpulse for more information.
The Power Pulse podcast is produced and edited by Creative Chimps for Hitachi Energy.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
High voltage takes center stagein this season of Hitachi
Energy's Power Pulse podcast.
We promise to bring you great contentfrom the brightest minds in the business.
We'll discuss challenges, opportunities,and all the hot topics
any high voltage enthusiast
or anyone interested in sustainability,for that matter, is sure to enjoy.
Today we're going to talk aboutone of the biggest challenges
the energy sector is facing,and that is moving on from SF6 –
(00:23):
the trusted, reliable
and nearly impossible to replaceinsulation gas for high voltage.
Key words (00:28):
nearly impossible.
Transitioning away from this
gas isn't just a matter of findinga mere replacement or band-aid solution.
It demands innovation, global cooperation,and, most importantly, standardization.
Joining us today is Dr. Michael Gatzsche.
He is the Head of Interrupter and GCBTechnology Development at Hitachi Energy.
He is driven by his passion for learningand contributing his talents and skills
(00:50):
to building innovative technology thatwill pave the way for a brighter future.
Hello, Michael.
Welcome to the Power Pulse podcast.It's lovely to have you here.
How are you today?
Hello, Bárbara.Thanks a lot for having me.
I'm great. How are you doing? Pleasure.
I've been trying to get you to cometo the podcast for a while now, haven’t I?
Maybe going on a year now, I think. Yeah.
Last time I escaped on a business tripbut this time I had no excuse.
(01:13):
You’re here. Good.
Thank you so much for making the timeto come and speak with us.
We always start each episodeby talking a little bit about something
that our guests do outside of work andmy team tell me that you're into K-drama.
Now, I've heard of K-pop.I haven't heard of K-drama.
What is K-drama?
I don't know what your team istelling you.
I watched one show, one K-drama show.
(01:34):
So you're not a K-drama fan then?
For me, actually, it's a very new additionto the, let's say, afterwork
portfolio, but it's basicallya class of drama from South Korea.
Okay.
I was traveling in Switzerland
with my partner, and we were walking alonga lake in Iseltwald.
And this is a very famous location,one of the K-dramas, and we didn't know,
(01:55):
but we noticed there were a lotof tourists taking pictures there and–
Is that how you got into it? Yeah.
And so we investigateda little bit what it is.
And then we actually startedwatching one of the shows.
Very cool.
But we are here today to talk aboutstandardization and SF6-free switchgear.
We have talked about SF6 and alternativesat length throughout the podcast episodes
(02:15):
that we've released.
SF6 has been the go-to insulation mediumfor switchgear for decades,
and now we've got this alternative.
So we've got companies like ourslooking at alternatives
that are eco-efficient to replace the mostpotent greenhouse gas known to man.
So why now?
And why do SF6-free gasesneed to be standardized?
Yes, I think it's a very good pointin time now for standardization,
(02:37):
because the development and implementationof SF6 alternatives has been a focus
for the R&D of the big manufacturersover the last decade, I would say.
And first,there were like really open development.
Everyone tried to figure outthe best solution.
And also different manufacturers,
different institutionscame up with different solutions to that.
(02:58):
And there were always also pioneersthat went ahead
without standardization,trying out if it works, so to say.
And so there was a bitmore of an exploratory phase.
But now we are really in this phase
where this is actually becomingthe standard,
where it isbecoming the main procurement choice,
at least in certain regionsin the world, to buy SF6-free equipment.
And then it is really importantto have standardization
(03:20):
and to ensure the interoperabilityof the equipment,
to ensure that this equipment,which will be in service for 40, 50 years
in the grid,that it can be serviced in this time,
that people can be trained on it,and that specification for components
for the gasses themselves are somehowtransferable between
different manufacturers,between different grid operators.
(03:41):
Okay, butthere are different solutions on offer.
So I guess the standardizationfor different solutions will be different.
How do each compareand do they have strengths and weaknesses?
Can you tell us a bit more about it?
Yes, that's a very good point.
I mean, the standardization is more aboutgiving a framework – a common framework –
but it doesn't necessarily mean
that everyone has to have exactlythe same solution.
(04:02):
Even before we came to the SF6alternatives, there were different
technical solutions out there.
So there are predominantly SF6 now,but there are still some old oil
breakers or AirPlus breakersout there in operation.
And even with SF6, each manufacturer usesa different filling pressure.
Some have three conductorsin the same enclosure,
some have one there, so it's not aboutstandardizing the design, it's
(04:26):
about standardizing the requirementsbasically, and the testing of it.
Okay.
So if you've got a new piece of kitand you want to get it onto the market.
So the way that you have to passcertain tests in order for it to be able
to be marketed,and those tests are the same
for whatever company is putting themforward..That's what you’re saying?
Exactly. So we can all be different.
We have different specs,but we abide by a common set of rules.
(04:49):
Exactly.
Because in the end, the high voltageproducts have to perform in the grid.
They will be stressed from the grid sidebasically.
And it is important that this is definedin a way, but it's not important
to standardize how the equipmentlooks like or how it’s designed.
It's even better to leave that open.
Okay. It’s even better?
Yes, it promotes competition and thesearch for the best technical solution.
(05:11):
And I think that is somethingthat everyone profits in the end from.
Yeah, of course.
Would the energy industry suffer, ifthere were not to be a standard approach?
So if there's like gaps in standardizationor lack of standardization,
it creates a bit of an uncertaintybecause people are not exactly sure
how to specifyor what are the exact requirements.
(05:31):
And while this might not be an issuefor maybe someone who’s
very much a pioneerand wants to try out new things.
It is kind of a barrierfor the large-scale adoption.
And the reason for thisis these high voltage products,
high voltage switchgear, they aretypically in operation for 40 to 50 years,
so for basically more than a workinglifetime generation.
(05:53):
And then it's importantthat beyond just having the equipment,
there is like an ecosystem
around these equipments, for example,for the gas, for the equipment
to handle the gas, to fill itin, to analyze it, to evacuate it;
also common standards for trainingof the people, common procedures.
And there it isvery important to have the standardization
(06:13):
and create that certainty
and that framework for the operatorsto adopt the technology.
Okay.
And I guess the safety procedures thatcome with it must be very stringent.
Yes. Safety is an absolute priority.
I mean, one thing, of course, in the highvoltage products, you have conductors
that are at high voltageat the high potential,
and this voltage is so highthat it is a very strong hazard
(06:35):
if someone would touch itor even just come near it.
So the products must be very safein containing this high voltage.
But also if we talk about gasinsulated equipment,
these are essentially pressure vesselswith rather large volume
of even a few cubic meterswith pressures of ten bar for example.
And there’s a lot of physical energystored in such a pressure vessel.
So when people, fill the gasinto this equipment,
(06:57):
when they open it for inspection,there need to be very stringent
safety procedures.
My next question has to be– who sets these standards?
Who are the companies,the organizations or associations
whoever they might be,setting these standards for the industry?
So this is also kind of a longer process.
So typically
when something new is developed there ismaybe like a pre-standardization phase.
(07:18):
So before there’s the standardizationwhere there’s the development,
but there's also kind of publications.
So maybe companies or academicinstitutions do technical publications
sharing what they are investigatingand what they find out.
And then there is pre-standardizationactivities.
For example, CIGRE is a big organizationthat does that.
(07:38):
CIGRE stands for? Just for our listeners.
CIGRE is French, abbreviationfor Conseil International
des Grands Réseaux Electriques.
Très bien.
And it stands for International Councilof Large Electrical Networks
and it's a communitywith knowhow of the power system.
And one of the main outputs ofthis is technical brochures on topics.
(08:01):
And this is more or lessa collection of the state of the art
of a certain topic, for example SF6alternatives.
Okay.
So this pre-standardization phase,how long does it take
and how long do you need
to have something in the makingbefore it gets pre-standardized?
And how long then to be standardized?
Well that's a very good question.
I would guess that each of these phases –maybe around five years, sometimes–
(08:24):
Five years. Okay.
It can also be a bit longer,especially if you really have
some basic investigationtrying out different things.
Yeah, but maybe five years per phase,that's a good estimate.
Okay. So you've told me about CIGRE.
I know as well, there's IEC and IEEE.
Yes. This is then IEC is the InternationalElectrotechnical Commission
and IEEE is the Institution of Electricaland Electronic Engineers.
(08:48):
This is a bit more US, or America-focused.
They really then make the standards.
And these standards are a good guidelinefor the grid operators
basically to specify equipment –
what do we actually want;what are the ratings that we want.
It is also very important for usas manufacturers to what
we actually design; what does theperformance our equipment has to deliver.
(09:10):
But it's also an important guidelinefor the testing laboratories
who do the qualificationof this equipment,
the qualification teststo see what they actually need to test,
how the parameters have to look likewhen testing those equipments.
And utilities, regulators, manufacturers,I guess they collaborate –
they come together into these associationsand they give there two cents,
(09:31):
they try and explain what their needs are.
Yes. So that we as suppliers can give themwhat they want, what they need.
Yes. So this comingtogether of the different perspectives
is extremely importantbecause the whole ecosystem
has to work together, and it's importantthat all the perspectives are included.
So you need to specify it in a waythat it fulfills
(09:51):
the requirements of the power grid,
but it also needs to be somethingthat actually can be manufactured
so that we as equipmentmanufacturer can produce.
And it also needs to be somehow
provable or testable by the testinglabs, because, especially for high voltage
products, it's an industry
where the qualificationand the testing is extremely important.
(10:12):
So basically everythingthat needs to be fulfilled later
on in the power gridalso needs to be tested.
The grid is very different worldwide,right?
You have different requirementsin North America than they do in Europe.
How does this account for all those littleintricacies of the grid?
Yes, that's a very, very good question.
Also one that I would say as us –as a manufacturer – keeps it very busy.
(10:33):
I mean, for us, the best thingof course, would be like one standard.
And we develop for this test for thisand we are done.
But it's not like this.
I mean, one really basicthing is if you look at the globe,
there are many countries
that have 50Hz as the frequencyof the alternating current.
Here in Europe this is predominant.
And others have 60Hz,which is a little bit faster in the US.
(10:55):
And actually, when you look
at the whole set of requirementsor stresses for our equipment,
some of them are more challenging
with 60Hz and some of themare more challenging for 50Hz.
But we have a global perspective.
So we want our equipment
to work in both regions,so to say or for both frequencies.
So actually in the developmentwe already have to take into account
(11:15):
that we need to be able to makethe test duties that are hard in 60Hz.
Also the ones that are, more hard in 50Hz.
Just thought of another questionI wanted to ask you.
If we can go a couple of steps back,if that's okay.
So you have standards for SF6 equipment.
Couldn't that be transferredover to non-SF6 alternatives?
Actually, it's a very important point.
(11:35):
So I would say the majority of allthe standards are applicable to SF6,
but also SF6 alternativesand also other technology
like old oil breakers or vacuumcircuit breakers.
And this is because they just describewhat are the requirements
coming from the power gridand how it needs to be tested.
And this should be independentof the technology,
(11:56):
because it also enables us to try outnew things, actually, new technology.
There are, however,a certain set of standards that are then
technology-specific,and this is everything that relates
to handling the gas –also a bit to the safety in doing that.
It is relevantwhen you specify these gases that you fill
in, you want a common specificationso that also suppliers that provide,
(12:19):
for example, gases can orient themselvesto fulfill this specification
and sell to different parties.
And also some specifics in testing,for example, when it comes to gas
tightness or to leakage testing,this is an important topic.
We want the gas to stay in the equipment.
And the other requirementscan be a little bit different from a gas
that has a very high climate impactlike SF6 to the non-SF6
(12:42):
gases who have way lower environmentalimpact when they leak out.
One global SF6-free standard, is itattainable?
Is it needed?
I think there cannot be one globalstandard.
There’s already todaya very diverse standardization landscape.
And I think most ofit has already been updated
(13:02):
to account for the SF6 alternatives.
So we see this, the grid operators,we as manufacturers,
we have the tools in hand to providethe equipment, SF6-free equipment
for a large scaleadoption in the power grid.
And I think what we can do going forward
and what's importantis this return of experience.
Now this equipment is being usedin the grid.
We collect the hands-on experienceand this is important to use,
(13:24):
then the pre-standardization work,standardization work, forums like CIGRE,
to give this return of experience
and use this in a continuous improvementof standardization.
Okay.
So in your viewwhat does the SF6-free grid look like
in the future, in the few years to come?
Yeah.
For me, the big wish is that SF6-freeequipment becomes
(13:45):
basically the standard choicewhenever the rating desired by
the operator is available,that operators really have the certainty
to say we go for the SF6-free equipment,because I think it's a beautiful thing.
It enables us to extend the grid,to connect more renewables to the grid, to
enable electrification
of transportation, of heating,and so on by strengthening the grid.
(14:07):
And we can do that without addingtons on tons of the SF6
that we wouldthen have to manage for decades to come.
So our vision would be that it becomesthe standard to go SF6-free.
That's... Yeah, the future's bright.
Just before you go,I know you hold a quite important role
within one of these organizationsthat we mentioned, CIGRE.
Can you tell us a bit more about the rolesand how companies come together
(14:30):
and how they work togetherto achieve a common goal?
Yes. I think CIGREespecially is extremely motivating,
collaborative approach because we have thedifferent parties in the manufacturers.
We call it users, which is essentiallythe utilities or the grid operators.
But you also have suppliersthat provide gas handling equipment.
Also, sometimes academia and consultantsand all of them come together to share.
(14:54):
These the working groups?
Yeah. And working groups, for example.
This is a key point, I would sayforms the core somehow of the CIGRE
to have these working groupsto work on those technical brochure
to basically further the state of the arta little bit by providing
this brochure or this state of the artin a condensed manner.
And it's very interesting because you havethe different perspectives,
(15:16):
but you might also have, for example,direct competitors
in such a working group.
And so there's also very defined
guidelines how the collaborationcan be in such a working group.
And basically it reliesthat you can only share
information that is publicor intended for publication anyway.
But you can of course not share any,let's say, confidential information
(15:38):
or commercial information,
information of clients or supplystrategies or something like that.
So there’s a defined frameworkof how to collaborate there.
But of course this is also a motivationfor all involved
to actually publish information,to write technical papers and to share
basically the know how that is establishedwith the wider community.
(15:59):
And especially when it comesto new technologies.
This is very interesting
because some partiesneed to be the pioneers in implementing
this technology and for example,designing or testing such products.
And then they actually dohave this knowhow because they like
needed to do itto bring the the products to market.
And then it's very good to be ableto share this in such a framework and
(16:20):
contributeto furthering the state of the art a bit.
You are lead.
I can’t remember,
there is a word to describe your rolewithin one of these working groups.
I'm a convenerof one of the working groups.
There we go.
It is somehowa bit of an organizational role, basically
looking for the members of the working
groups, organizing that workinggroup meets in regular intervals,
that there is a good planin drafting such a technical brochure,
(16:44):
that there's also,I would say, a diversity of perspectives
in the working groupso that everyone can be heard.
And yeah,I think for me, it's a great opportunity
to do that and very motivatingto work in such an environment.
Are you able to share somethingthat you're working on
at the moment or– Are we– The working– Strictly confidential?
No, it's actually public.
So the working group is about eco-designmethods for the power system.
(17:07):
This basically how this approachof eco-design, of considering
the environmental impact of a productor service already in designing it, how
this can be applied to the power systemand to the components in the power system.
Okay. That's very interesting.
It is. I can I can You can attest?
Yes. Yes, I can attest for that.
(17:28):
Thank you so much for coming inand talking to us
about such an interesting topic.
It's been wonderful having you here.Thank you.
Thanks a lot for having me Bárbara.
It's been worth the wait.
Thanks, Michael. Thank you Bárbara.
And that's it for today.
We'll be back soonwith some more great content.
But before you go,remember to give us a follow
so you don't miss an episode.
Thanks for tuning in. See you soon!
This episode was brought to you by HitachiEnergy.
(17:51):
Created and hosted by BárbaraFreitas-Daniels.
Content and scriptwriting by Cassandra Inay.
Guest speaker Dr Michael Gatzsche.
Studio supportby Giovanni Perrone and Natalja Arbatska.
Produced and edited by Creative Chimps.
High voltage takes center stagein this season of Hitachi
Energy's Power Pulse podcast.
We promise to bring you great contentfrom the brightest minds in the business.
We'll discuss challenges, opportunities,and all the hot topics
any high voltage enthusiast
or anyone interested in sustainability,for that matter, is sure to enjoy.
Today we're going to talk aboutone of the biggest challenges
the energy sector is facing,and that is moving on from SF6 –
(00:23):
the trusted, reliable
and nearly impossible to replaceinsulation gas for high voltage.
Key words (00:28):
nearly impossible.
Transitioning away from this
gas isn't just a matter of findinga mere replacement or band-aid solution.
It demands innovation, global cooperation,and, most importantly, standardization.
Joining us today is Dr. Michael Gatzsche.
He is the Head of Interrupter and GCBTechnology Development at Hitachi Energy.
He is driven by his passion for learningand contributing his talents and skills
(00:50):
to building innovative technology thatwill pave the way for a brighter future.
Hello, Michael.
Welcome to the Power Pulse podcast.It's lovely to have you here.
How are you today?
Hello, Bárbara.Thanks a lot for having me.
I'm great. How are you doing? Pleasure.
I've been trying to get you to cometo the podcast for a while now, haven’t I?
Maybe going on a year now, I think. Yeah.
Last time I escaped on a business tripbut this time I had no excuse.
(01:13):
You’re here. Good.
Thank you so much for making the timeto come and speak with us.
We always start each episodeby talking a little bit about something
that our guests do outside of work andmy team tell me that you're into K-drama.
Now, I've heard of K-pop.I haven't heard of K-drama.
What is K-drama?
I don't know what your team istelling you.
I watched one show, one K-drama show.
(01:34):
So you're not a K-drama fan then?
For me, actually, it's a very new additionto the, let's say, afterwork
portfolio, but it's basicallya class of drama from South Korea.
Okay.
I was traveling in Switzerland
with my partner, and we were walking alonga lake in Iseltwald.
And this is a very famous location,one of the K-dramas, and we didn't know,
(01:55):
but we noticed there were a lotof tourists taking pictures there and–
Is that how you got into it? Yeah.
And so we investigateda little bit what it is.
And then we actually startedwatching one of the shows.
Very cool.
But we are here today to talk aboutstandardization and SF6-free switchgear.
We have talked about SF6 and alternativesat length throughout the podcast episodes
(02:15):
that we've released.
SF6 has been the go-to insulation mediumfor switchgear for decades,
and now we've got this alternative.
So we've got companies like ourslooking at alternatives
that are eco-efficient to replace the mostpotent greenhouse gas known to man.
So why now?
And why do SF6-free gasesneed to be standardized?
Yes, I think it's a very good pointin time now for standardization,
(02:37):
because the development and implementationof SF6 alternatives has been a focus
for the R&D of the big manufacturersover the last decade, I would say.
And first,there were like really open development.
Everyone tried to figure outthe best solution.
And also different manufacturers,
different institutionscame up with different solutions to that.
(02:58):
And there were always also pioneersthat went ahead
without standardization,trying out if it works, so to say.
And so there was a bitmore of an exploratory phase.
But now we are really in this phase
where this is actually becomingthe standard,
where it isbecoming the main procurement choice,
at least in certain regionsin the world, to buy SF6-free equipment.
And then it is really importantto have standardization
(03:20):
and to ensure the interoperabilityof the equipment,
to ensure that this equipment,which will be in service for 40, 50 years
in the grid,that it can be serviced in this time,
that people can be trained on it,and that specification for components
for the gasses themselves are somehowtransferable between
different manufacturers,between different grid operators.
(03:41):
Okay, butthere are different solutions on offer.
So I guess the standardizationfor different solutions will be different.
How do each compareand do they have strengths and weaknesses?
Can you tell us a bit more about it?
Yes, that's a very good point.
I mean, the standardization is more aboutgiving a framework – a common framework –
but it doesn't necessarily mean
that everyone has to have exactlythe same solution.
(04:02):
Even before we came to the SF6alternatives, there were different
technical solutions out there.
So there are predominantly SF6 now,but there are still some old oil
breakers or AirPlus breakersout there in operation.
And even with SF6, each manufacturer usesa different filling pressure.
Some have three conductorsin the same enclosure,
some have one there, so it's not aboutstandardizing the design, it's
(04:26):
about standardizing the requirementsbasically, and the testing of it.
Okay.
So if you've got a new piece of kitand you want to get it onto the market.
So the way that you have to passcertain tests in order for it to be able
to be marketed,and those tests are the same
for whatever company is putting themforward..That's what you’re saying?
Exactly. So we can all be different.
We have different specs,but we abide by a common set of rules.
(04:49):
Exactly.
Because in the end, the high voltageproducts have to perform in the grid.
They will be stressed from the grid sidebasically.
And it is important that this is definedin a way, but it's not important
to standardize how the equipmentlooks like or how it’s designed.
It's even better to leave that open.
Okay. It’s even better?
Yes, it promotes competition and thesearch for the best technical solution.
(05:11):
And I think that is somethingthat everyone profits in the end from.
Yeah, of course.
Would the energy industry suffer, ifthere were not to be a standard approach?
So if there's like gaps in standardizationor lack of standardization,
it creates a bit of an uncertaintybecause people are not exactly sure
how to specifyor what are the exact requirements.
(05:31):
And while this might not be an issuefor maybe someone who’s
very much a pioneerand wants to try out new things.
It is kind of a barrierfor the large-scale adoption.
And the reason for thisis these high voltage products,
high voltage switchgear, they aretypically in operation for 40 to 50 years,
so for basically more than a workinglifetime generation.
(05:53):
And then it's importantthat beyond just having the equipment,
there is like an ecosystem
around these equipments, for example,for the gas, for the equipment
to handle the gas, to fill itin, to analyze it, to evacuate it;
also common standards for trainingof the people, common procedures.
And there it isvery important to have the standardization
(06:13):
and create that certainty
and that framework for the operatorsto adopt the technology.
Okay.
And I guess the safety procedures thatcome with it must be very stringent.
Yes. Safety is an absolute priority.
I mean, one thing, of course, in the highvoltage products, you have conductors
that are at high voltageat the high potential,
and this voltage is so highthat it is a very strong hazard
(06:35):
if someone would touch itor even just come near it.
So the products must be very safein containing this high voltage.
But also if we talk about gasinsulated equipment,
these are essentially pressure vesselswith rather large volume
of even a few cubic meterswith pressures of ten bar for example.
And there’s a lot of physical energystored in such a pressure vessel.
So when people, fill the gasinto this equipment,
(06:57):
when they open it for inspection,there need to be very stringent
safety procedures.
My next question has to be– who sets these standards?
Who are the companies,the organizations or associations
whoever they might be,setting these standards for the industry?
So this is also kind of a longer process.
So typically
when something new is developed there ismaybe like a pre-standardization phase.
(07:18):
So before there’s the standardizationwhere there’s the development,
but there's also kind of publications.
So maybe companies or academicinstitutions do technical publications
sharing what they are investigatingand what they find out.
And then there is pre-standardizationactivities.
For example, CIGRE is a big organizationthat does that.
(07:38):
CIGRE stands for? Just for our listeners.
CIGRE is French, abbreviationfor Conseil International
des Grands Réseaux Electriques.
Très bien.
And it stands for International Councilof Large Electrical Networks
and it's a communitywith knowhow of the power system.
And one of the main outputs ofthis is technical brochures on topics.
(08:01):
And this is more or lessa collection of the state of the art
of a certain topic, for example SF6alternatives.
Okay.
So this pre-standardization phase,how long does it take
and how long do you need
to have something in the makingbefore it gets pre-standardized?
And how long then to be standardized?
Well that's a very good question.
I would guess that each of these phases –maybe around five years, sometimes–
(08:24):
Five years. Okay.
It can also be a bit longer,especially if you really have
some basic investigationtrying out different things.
Yeah, but maybe five years per phase,that's a good estimate.
Okay. So you've told me about CIGRE.
I know as well, there's IEC and IEEE.
Yes. This is then IEC is the InternationalElectrotechnical Commission
and IEEE is the Institution of Electricaland Electronic Engineers.
(08:48):
This is a bit more US, or America-focused.
They really then make the standards.
And these standards are a good guidelinefor the grid operators
basically to specify equipment –
what do we actually want;what are the ratings that we want.
It is also very important for usas manufacturers to what
we actually design; what does theperformance our equipment has to deliver.
(09:10):
But it's also an important guidelinefor the testing laboratories
who do the qualificationof this equipment,
the qualification teststo see what they actually need to test,
how the parameters have to look likewhen testing those equipments.
And utilities, regulators, manufacturers,I guess they collaborate –
they come together into these associationsand they give there two cents,
(09:31):
they try and explain what their needs are.
Yes. So that we as suppliers can give themwhat they want, what they need.
Yes. So this comingtogether of the different perspectives
is extremely importantbecause the whole ecosystem
has to work together, and it's importantthat all the perspectives are included.
So you need to specify it in a waythat it fulfills
(09:51):
the requirements of the power grid,
but it also needs to be somethingthat actually can be manufactured
so that we as equipmentmanufacturer can produce.
And it also needs to be somehow
provable or testable by the testinglabs, because, especially for high voltage
products, it's an industry
where the qualificationand the testing is extremely important.
(10:12):
So basically everythingthat needs to be fulfilled later
on in the power gridalso needs to be tested.
The grid is very different worldwide,right?
You have different requirementsin North America than they do in Europe.
How does this account for all those littleintricacies of the grid?
Yes, that's a very, very good question.
Also one that I would say as us –as a manufacturer – keeps it very busy.
(10:33):
I mean, for us, the best thingof course, would be like one standard.
And we develop for this test for thisand we are done.
But it's not like this.
I mean, one really basicthing is if you look at the globe,
there are many countries
that have 50Hz as the frequencyof the alternating current.
Here in Europe this is predominant.
And others have 60Hz,which is a little bit faster in the US.
(10:55):
And actually, when you look
at the whole set of requirementsor stresses for our equipment,
some of them are more challenging
with 60Hz and some of themare more challenging for 50Hz.
But we have a global perspective.
So we want our equipment
to work in both regions,so to say or for both frequencies.
So actually in the developmentwe already have to take into account
(11:15):
that we need to be able to makethe test duties that are hard in 60Hz.
Also the ones that are, more hard in 50Hz.
Just thought of another questionI wanted to ask you.
If we can go a couple of steps back,if that's okay.
So you have standards for SF6 equipment.
Couldn't that be transferredover to non-SF6 alternatives?
Actually, it's a very important point.
(11:35):
So I would say the majority of allthe standards are applicable to SF6,
but also SF6 alternativesand also other technology
like old oil breakers or vacuumcircuit breakers.
And this is because they just describewhat are the requirements
coming from the power gridand how it needs to be tested.
And this should be independentof the technology,
(11:56):
because it also enables us to try outnew things, actually, new technology.
There are, however,a certain set of standards that are then
technology-specific,and this is everything that relates
to handling the gas –also a bit to the safety in doing that.
It is relevantwhen you specify these gases that you fill
in, you want a common specificationso that also suppliers that provide,
(12:19):
for example, gases can orient themselvesto fulfill this specification
and sell to different parties.
And also some specifics in testing,for example, when it comes to gas
tightness or to leakage testing,this is an important topic.
We want the gas to stay in the equipment.
And the other requirementscan be a little bit different from a gas
that has a very high climate impactlike SF6 to the non-SF6
(12:42):
gases who have way lower environmentalimpact when they leak out.
One global SF6-free standard, is itattainable?
Is it needed?
I think there cannot be one globalstandard.
There’s already todaya very diverse standardization landscape.
And I think most ofit has already been updated
(13:02):
to account for the SF6 alternatives.
So we see this, the grid operators,we as manufacturers,
we have the tools in hand to providethe equipment, SF6-free equipment
for a large scaleadoption in the power grid.
And I think what we can do going forward
and what's importantis this return of experience.
Now this equipment is being usedin the grid.
We collect the hands-on experienceand this is important to use,
(13:24):
then the pre-standardization work,standardization work, forums like CIGRE,
to give this return of experience
and use this in a continuous improvementof standardization.
Okay.
So in your viewwhat does the SF6-free grid look like
in the future, in the few years to come?
Yeah.
For me, the big wish is that SF6-freeequipment becomes
(13:45):
basically the standard choicewhenever the rating desired by
the operator is available,that operators really have the certainty
to say we go for the SF6-free equipment,because I think it's a beautiful thing.
It enables us to extend the grid,to connect more renewables to the grid, to
enable electrification
of transportation, of heating,and so on by strengthening the grid.
(14:07):
And we can do that without addingtons on tons of the SF6
that we wouldthen have to manage for decades to come.
So our vision would be that it becomesthe standard to go SF6-free.
That's... Yeah, the future's bright.
Just before you go,I know you hold a quite important role
within one of these organizationsthat we mentioned, CIGRE.
Can you tell us a bit more about the rolesand how companies come together
(14:30):
and how they work togetherto achieve a common goal?
Yes. I think CIGREespecially is extremely motivating,
collaborative approach because we have thedifferent parties in the manufacturers.
We call it users, which is essentiallythe utilities or the grid operators.
But you also have suppliersthat provide gas handling equipment.
Also, sometimes academia and consultantsand all of them come together to share.
(14:54):
These the working groups?
Yeah. And working groups, for example.
This is a key point, I would sayforms the core somehow of the CIGRE
to have these working groupsto work on those technical brochure
to basically further the state of the arta little bit by providing
this brochure or this state of the artin a condensed manner.
And it's very interesting because you havethe different perspectives,
(15:16):
but you might also have, for example,direct competitors
in such a working group.
And so there's also very defined
guidelines how the collaborationcan be in such a working group.
And basically it reliesthat you can only share
information that is publicor intended for publication anyway.
But you can of course not share any,let's say, confidential information
(15:38):
or commercial information,
information of clients or supplystrategies or something like that.
So there’s a defined frameworkof how to collaborate there.
But of course this is also a motivationfor all involved
to actually publish information,to write technical papers and to share
basically the know how that is establishedwith the wider community.
(15:59):
And especially when it comesto new technologies.
This is very interesting
because some partiesneed to be the pioneers in implementing
this technology and for example,designing or testing such products.
And then they actually dohave this knowhow because they like
needed to do itto bring the the products to market.
And then it's very good to be ableto share this in such a framework and
(16:20):
contributeto furthering the state of the art a bit.
You are lead.
I can’t remember,
there is a word to describe your rolewithin one of these working groups.
I'm a convenerof one of the working groups.
There we go.
It is somehowa bit of an organizational role, basically
looking for the members of the working
groups, organizing that workinggroup meets in regular intervals,
that there is a good planin drafting such a technical brochure,
(16:44):
that there's also,I would say, a diversity of perspectives
in the working groupso that everyone can be heard.
And yeah,I think for me, it's a great opportunity
to do that and very motivatingto work in such an environment.
Are you able to share somethingthat you're working on
at the moment or– Are we– The working– Strictly confidential?
No, it's actually public.
So the working group is about eco-designmethods for the power system.
(17:07):
This basically how this approachof eco-design, of considering
the environmental impact of a productor service already in designing it, how
this can be applied to the power systemand to the components in the power system.
Okay. That's very interesting.
It is. I can I can You can attest?
Yes. Yes, I can attest for that.
(17:28):
Thank you so much for coming inand talking to us
about such an interesting topic.
It's been wonderful having you here.Thank you.
Thanks a lot for having me Bárbara.
It's been worth the wait.
Thanks, Michael. Thank you Bárbara.
And that's it for today.
We'll be back soonwith some more great content.
But before you go,remember to give us a follow
so you don't miss an episode.
Thanks for tuning in. See you soon!
This episode was brought to you by HitachiEnergy.
(17:51):
Created and hosted by BárbaraFreitas-Daniels.
Content and scriptwriting by Cassandra Inay.
Guest speaker Dr Michael Gatzsche.
Studio supportby Giovanni Perrone and Natalja Arbatska.
Produced and edited by Creative Chimps.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!