Conference Proceeding
Refine
Year of publication
- 2009 (86) (remove)
Institute
- Fachbereich Bauingenieurwesen (18)
- Fachbereich Maschinenbau und Mechatronik (16)
- Solar-Institut Jülich (14)
- Fachbereich Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik (12)
- IfB - Institut für Bioengineering (11)
- Fachbereich Energietechnik (8)
- Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik (7)
- Fachbereich Medizintechnik und Technomathematik (7)
- Kommission für Forschung und Entwicklung (4)
- Fachbereich Architektur (3)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (86) (remove)
Keywords
- Blitzschutz (3)
- Fließgewässer (3)
- Geodatenbank (3)
- Geodatenhaltung (3)
- Geoinformationen (3)
- Geoinformationssystem (3)
- Renaturierung <Ökologie> (2)
- Spacecraft (2)
- Stickstoffmonoxid (2)
- Wasserwirtschaft (2)
[Paper of the X International Symposium on Lightning Protection 9th - 13th November, 2009 - Curitiba, Brazil. 6 pages] The international standard IEC 62305-3, published in 2006, requires as an integral part of the lightning protection system (LPS) the consideration of a separation distance between the conductors of the LPS and metal and electrical installations inside the structure to be protected. IEC 62305-3 gives two different methods for this calculation: a standard, simplified approach and a more detailed approach, which differ especially regarding the treatment of the current sharing effect on the LPS conductors. Hence, different results for the separation distance are possible, leading to some discrepancies in the use of the standard. The standard approach defined in the main part (Clause 6.3) and in Annex C of the standard in some cases may lead to a severe oversizing of the required separation distance. The detailed approach described in Annex E naturally gives more correct results. However, a calculation of the current sharing amongst all parts of the air-termination and downconductor network is necessary, in many cases requiring the use of network analysis programs. In this paper simplified methods for the assessment of the current sharing are presented, which are easy to use as well as sufficiently adequate.
8. VDE/ABB-Blitzschutztagung, 29. - 30. Oktober 2009 in Neu-Ulm. Blitzschutztagung <8, 2009, Neu-Ulm> Berlin : VDE Verl. 2009 Großkraftwerke können durch Blitzentladungen mit potentiellen Auswirkungen auf deren Verfügbarkeit und Sicherheit gefährdet werden. Ein sehr spezielles Szenario, welches aus aktuellem Anlass zu untersuchen war, betrifft den kraftwerksnahen Blitzeinschlag in die Hochspannungs-Freileitung am Netzanschluss der Anlage. Wird nun noch ein sogenannter Schirmfehler unterstellt, d.h. der direkte Blitzeinschlag erfolgt in ein Leiterseil des Hoch- bzw. Höchstspannungsnetzes und nicht in das darüber gespannte Erdseil, so bedeutet dies eine extreme elektromagnetische Einwirkung. Der vorliegende Beitrag befasst sich mit der Simulation eines solchen Blitzeinschlages und dessen Auswirkungen auf den Netzanschluss und die Komponenten der elektrischen Eigenbedarfsanlagen eines Kraftwerks auf den unterlagerten Spannungsebenen. Die dabei gewonnenen Erkenntnisse lassen sich ohne Einschränkungen auf Industrieanlagen mit Mittelspannungs-Netzanschluss und ohne eigener Stromversorgung übertragen.
The ANM’09 multi-disciplinary scientific program includes topics in the fields of "Nanotechnology and Microelectronics" ranging from "Bio/Micro/Nano Materials and Interfacing" aspects, "Chemical and Bio-Sensors", "Magnetic and Superconducting Devices", "MEMS and Microfluidics" over "Theoretical Aspects, Methods and Modelling" up to the important bridging "Academics meet Industry".
Working paper distributed at 2nd Annual Next Generation Telecommunications Conference 2009, 13th – 14th October 2009, Brussels 14 pages Abstract Governments all over Europe are in the process of adopting new broadband strategies. The objective is to create modern telecommunications networks based on powerful broadband infrastructures". In doing so, they aim for innovative and investment-friendly concepts. For instance, in a recently published consultation paper on the subject the German regulator BNetzA declared that it will take “greater account of … reducing risks, securing the investment and innovation power, providing planning certainty and transparency – in order to support and advance broadband rollout in Germany”. It further states that when regulating wholesale rates it has to be ensured that “… adequate incentives for network rollout are provided on the one hand, while sustainable and fair competition is ensured on the other”. Also an EC draft recommendation on regulated network access is about to set new standards for the regulation of next generation access networks. According to the recommendation the prices of new assets shall be based on costs plus a projectspecific risk premium to be included in the costs of capital for the investment risk incurred by the operator. This approach has been criticised from various sides. In particular it has been questioned whether such an approach is adequate to meet the objectives of encouraging both competition and investment into next generation access networks. Against this background, the concept of “long term risk sharing contracts” has been proposed recently as an approach which does not only incorporate the various additional risks involved in the deployment of NGA infrastructure, but has several other advantages. This paper will demonstrate that the concept allows for competition to evolve at both the retail and wholesale level on fair, objective, non-discriminatory and transparent terms and conditions. Moreover, it ensures the highest possible investment incentive in line with socially desirable outcome. The paper is organised as follows: The next section will briefly outline the importance of encouraging competition and investment in an NGA-environment. The third section will specify the design of long term risk sharing contracts in view of achieving these objectives. The fourth section will examine potential problems associated with the concept. In doing so a way of how to deal with them will be elaborated. The last section will look at arguments against long term risk sharing contracts. It will be shown that these arguments are not strong enough to build a case against introducing such contracts.