vii

Figures
2.1 Status of Electricity Market Restructuring .................. 8
2.2 Areas of the United States in Which Major Transmission
Constraints Have Been Identified ........................ 21
3.1 Portion of Downtown Chicago Grid Showing Area of Interest
and Contingency Area, Commonwealth Edison Control Area
Within MAIN Transmission Grid Shown in Inset ............. 27
3.2 Portion of the California Grid Showing Path 15 .............. 35
4.1 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cryocooler Efficiency
and Utilization Values Above the Curves Use Less Energy Per
Unit of Power Delivered than the XLPE Cable ............... 45
4.2 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cable Cost and
Cryocooler Efficiency Values Below the Curves Have a Lower
Life-Cycle Cost Per Unit of Power Delivered than the XLPE
Cable, Electricity Cost of 10 per kWh .................... 48
4.3 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cable Cost and
Cryocooler Efficiency Values Below the Curves Have a Lower
Life-Cycle Cost Per Unit of Power Delivered than the XLPE
Cable, Electricity Cost of 5 per kWh ..................... 49
4.4 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cable Cost and
Cryocooler Efficiency Values Below the Curves Have a Lower
Life-Cycle Cost Per Unit of Power Delivered than the XLPE
Cable, Various Utilization and Cryocooler Cost Values,
Electricity Cost of 5 per kWh, HTS Cable Thermal Loss
of 1 W/m ......................................... 52
4.5 Discounted Payback Time Versus Cable Length for HTS Cable
Compared with XLPE Cable, Cryocooler Efficiency 27 Percent of
Carnot............................................ 53
4.6 Discounted Payback Time for HTS Cable Compared with XLPE
Cable as a Function of HTS Cable Cost and Cryocooler
Efficiency, Electricity Cost of 5 per kWh .................. 53
4.7 Discounted Payback Time for HTS Cable Compared with XLPE
Cable as a Function of HTS Cable Cost and Cryocooler
Efficiency, Electricity Cost of 10 per kWh .................. 54
4.8 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cryocooler Efficiency
and Utilization Values Above the Curves Use Less Energy Per
Unit of Power Delivered than the ACSR Line ............... 57
4.9 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cable Cost and
Cryocooler Efficiency Values Below the Curves Have a Lower
Life-Cycle Cost per Unit of Power Delivered than the ACSR Line,
Electricity Cost of 10 per kWh ......................... 58
4.10 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cable Cost and
Cryocooler Efficiency Values Below the Curves Have a Lower
Life-Cycle Cost Per Unit of Power Delivered than the ACSR Line,
Electricity Cost of 5 per kWh........................... 59

viii

4.11 Boundaries Showing that HTS Cables with Cable Cost and
Cryocooler Efficiency Values Below the Curves Have a Lower
Life-Cycle Cost Per Unit of Power Delivered than the ACSR Line,
Various Utilization and Cryocooler Cost Values, Electricity Cost
of 5 per kWh, HTS Cable Thermal Loss of 1 W/m ........... 60
4.12 Discounted Payback Time Versus Cable Length for HTS Cable
Compared with ACSR Line, HTS Cable Cost of $200 per kAm,
Cryocooler Efficiency 14 Percent of Carnot ................. 61
4.13 Discounted Payback Time for HTS Cable Compared with ACSR
Line as a Function of HTS Cable Cost and Cryocooler Efficiency,
Electricity Cost of 10 per kWh.......................... 62
4.14 Discounted Payback Time for HTS Cable Compared with ACSR
Line as a Function of HTS Cable Cost and Cryocooler Efficiency,
Electricity Cost of 5 per kWh .......................... 62
5.1 Schematic Representation of Power Flows in Energy Storage
Systems........................................... 65
5.2 Energy Conversion Efficiency Required for a FESS to Compete
with a BESS, Expressed as a Function of Utilization with Idling
Loss Equal to 110 Percent of Output Power ................ 67
5.3 Effects of Replacement Schedule on Life-Cycle Costs for BESSs
and a FESS ........................................ 71
5.4 Dependence on the Operating Temperature of the Total Power
Dissipated by a 5 MVA HTS Transformer .................. 76
5.5 Boundaries Showing that a 5 MVA HTS Transformer with
Cryocooler Efficiency and Utilization Values Above the Curves
Uses Less Energy than a Conventional Transformer........... 77
5.6 Discounted Payback Time for a 5 MVA HTS Transformer
Compared with a Conventional Transformer as a Function of
HTS Wire Cost and Cryocooler Efficiency, Electricity Cost of 5
per kWh .......................................... 79
5.7 Discounted Payback Time for a 5 MVA HTS Transformer
Compared with a Conventional Transformer as a Function of
HTS Wire Cost and Cryocooler Efficiency, Electricity Cost of 10
per kWh .......................................... 79
A.1 Stable Potential Energy Distribution ...................... 95
A.2 Unstable Potential Energy Distribution .................... 96