Description of Related Art Today, there are a number of different methods available for evaluating the results of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for electrical systems, equipment and products. However, a significant problem with these evaluation methods is that they are based on a number of assumptions that are relatively complex and difficult to understand. An example of an energy supply system including an evaluation approach is disclosed in European Patent Specification EP 0 568 822 Bl. However the evaluation disclosed is comprised in a system for optimising an energy output of a single generating unit in which an energy output is produced from a combination of different energy sources. The total energy output for that generating unit is optimised at least in part so as to achieve a low or minimised generation of environmental pollutants. However the application of this evaluation is limited to one generating unit and the basis for assigning what are called"energy costs"is difficult for a non-specialist to determine from the disclosure.

Furthermore, conducting an entire LCA study is a complex undertaking that takes a substantial time to perform.

Recently, the results of LCAs have been used for marketing of electrical systems, equipment and products. In particular, LCAs

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 have been used for evaluating the comparative impact of electrical systems, equipment and products in environmental terms. For example, ABB AB (formerly, Asea Brown Boveri AB) has introduced a new type of high voltage power generator called Powerformer (Trade mark) that can be connected directly to a power grid without a step-up transformer. In addition to the significant technical advantages associated with this new high voltage generation technology, LCA studies performed by ABB AB indicate that the Powerformer also has a significantly lower environmental impact than that of a conventional system with a generator and step-up transformer. Moreover, LCA studies performed by ABB AB indicate that these environmental advantages can accrue not only while the Powerformer equipment is being operated but also during its manufacturing and disposal phases.

LCA studies have been performed that compare the environmental differences between the Powerformer and conventional power generating systems. As illustrated by the simplified schematic diagram shown in FIGURE 1, the Powerformer plant is simpler and more compact than a conventional power generating plant, because the step-up transformer 4, associated circuit breaker 2 and surge arrester 3a are not required. Consequently, the Powerformer plant requires less space than a conventional power generating system, and a conventional oil-collection pit is not needed.

Furthermore, because the Powerformer has fewer components than a conventional power generating system, the Powerformer plant's maintenance requirements are reduced and reliability is enhanced in comparison with the conventional systems. As such, as described in detail below, the environmental impact of the Powerformer plant is shown to be much lower than that of conventional power generating systems.

US 7,852,560 discloses an apparatus for assessing a load that industrial products apply to the environment. The apparatus described models and calculates a form of LCA analysis. Although it is stated to be for industrial products, it is in fact limited

to consumer products which have been produced industrially. The apparatus is intended for use with electrical appliances, that is, electricity consuming products such as refrigerators, televisions and washing machines. However, even for electrical appliances consuming products the apparatus is difficult for a non-specialist such as a general salesperson or ordinary customer to understand.

Further, the results disclosed in table form comparing calculations by the apparatus with results from other LCA analyses for the same product although meaningful in an academic context, it would be hard for a non-specialist to grasp the results and evaluate their significance.

Nevertheless, a number of significant problems exist with the use of LCA studies and environmental parameters for marketing of electrical systems, equipment or products. As mentioned above, the different methods used for evaluating the results of such LCA studies are based on a number of hard to penetrate assumptions which make the results difficult for sales persons and customers to understand, and therefore, are less suitable for marketing purposes. In fact, both sales persons and customers have found it exceedingly difficult to interpret the results of even a simplified LCA study in this regard. Also, conducting an entire LCA study is a complex undertaking that takes a relatively long time to perform. Moreover, the different methods used for evaluating the results of such LCA studies use global data that is less relevant and over-averaged. Consequently, a significant need exists for a method that can be used to simplify the use of LCAs and environmental parameters and make them more suitable for marketing or otherwise assessing electrical systems, equipment and products. As described in detail below, the present invention successfully resolves the above-described problems and other related problems.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment and products is provided, whereby the predominant environmental parameters related to the use of the electrical systems, equipment or products are translated into monetary terms. For example, in the preferred embodiment, the predominant emissions in the operation or use of power generating plants are assumed to be C02, NO, and S02. An additional assumption made is that all electrical losses incurred during a plant's operational or use phase are replaced by new energy that is produced in a specific region, typically the region involved or a region nearby. For example, such a region can include a country, county, city, town, or larger geographical area (e. g., European Community, North America, South America, etc.).

Also, a region other than the location of the plant may be selected to calculate'what if"scenarios, such as, for example, US emissions data calculated against emission taxes from a Swedish region. As such, a database is provided that includes life cycle inventory data of energy mixes (e. g., need for resources, and emissions) or single fuels for various geographical regions throughout the world.

The energy mixes (or single fuels) of the different regions result in various amounts of the predominant emissions, C02, NO, and S02, related to the energy losses incurred. The emissions related to the energy losses incurred during the operation of the power generating plant are then translated into monetary units. These. monetary units are associated with the environmental impact of the power generating plants being assessed. For this exemplary embodiment, the amount of emissions can be valued by such monetary costs as regional and/or national taxes imposed on emissions, retrofit costs (e. g., for converting coal-fired power plants to biomass power plants) in order to reduce emissions, restoration costs for environmentally degraded areas (e. g., restoring acidified lakes and soil, etc.), and emissions trading (e. g., plant owners trading for C02, SO2 and/or NOX emission allowance

certificates, etc). The monetary units (dollars, kronors, pounds, pesos, etc.) related to the environmental impact of operating different power generating plants are readily understood and can be compared for use in marketing of such systems, equipment or products. In other embodiments, the environmental impact of other electrical systems, equipment or products (e. g., power transmission and/or transformer systems and equipment, power distribution and/or power consumption equipment, etc.) are also translated to monetary terms and compared for marketing or other purposes.

An important technical advantage of the present invention is that a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment and products is provided that links environmental parameters to economic consequences that are relatively easy to compile and understand.

Another important technical advantage of the present invention is that a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment and products is provided that produces results with a relatively high level of reliability because region-specific energy and emission data is used.

Yet another important technical advantage of the present invention is that a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment and products is provided that reduces the need to perform entire lengthy, complex Life Cycle Assessments.

Still another important technical advantage of the present invention is that a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment and products is provided that allows selection of a region other than the location of a plant of interest to calculate"what if"scenarios.

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS A more complete understanding of the method and apparatus of the present invention may be had by reference to the following detailed description when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein: FIGURE 1 is a simplified schematic diagram of a Powerformer plant and a conventional power generating plant; FIGUREs 2A and 2B are related flow diagrams of an exemplary method that can be used to implement the present invention; FIGUREs 3A and 3B are related diagrams that show the consumption of material resources of copper and steel, respectively, used for manufacturing a Powerformer and conventional system per MWh of electricity produced; FIGUREs 4A and 4B are related diagrams that show, respectively, the global warming potential per MWh of electricity produced and acidification potential per MWh of electricity produced for the life cycle phases of the Powerformer and a conventional power generating system; FIGURE 5 is a diagram that shows the weights of the predominant emissions, C02, S02 and NOX per MWh of electricity produced during the Powerformer's and conventional system's different life cycle phases; FIGUREs 6A and 6B are related diagrams that show the emissions to air which are related to energy losses replaced by the electricity generation mix for the United States, and by electricity generation from European stone coal, respectively; FIGUREs 7A and 7B are related diagrams that show the emission costs incurred for the Powerformer and a conventional power

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 generating system in $US/year related to the energy losses replaced by the electricity generation mix in the United States and by electricity generated from European stone coal, respectively; FIGURE 7C is a schematic display of an application of an embodiment of the present invention to a comparison of electrical generators; FIGUREs 8A and 8B are related diagrams that show the present values of the emission costs related to energy losses replaced by the electricity mix in the United States and from electricity generated from European stone coal, respectively, for the Powerformer and a conventional power generating system; and FIGURE 9 is a simplified block diagram of a method that can be used to implement a second embodiment of the present invention.

FIGURE 10 is a simplified diagram of a standard wind-driven generator and a second-driven wind generator with a generator of the Powerformer type.

FIGURE 11 is a simplified diagram of components of a power generating and transmitting system including a wind driven generator of the Powerformer type.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS The preferred embodiment of the present invention and its advantages are best understood by referring to FIGUREs 1-11 of the drawings, like numerals being used for like and corresponding parts of the various drawings.

Essentially, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment and products

is provided, whereby the predominant environmental parameters related to the use of the electrical systems, equipment and products are translated into monetary terms. For example, in the preferred embodiment, the predominant emissions in the operation or use of power generating plants are assumed to be C02, S02 and NOX. An additional assumption made is that all electrical losses incurred during a plant's operational phase are preferably replaced by new energy produced in a specific region involved. As such, a database is provided that includes life cycle inventory data of certain energy mixes (e. g., need for resources, and emissions) for various geographical regions throughout the world.

The energy mixes of the different regions (can also include only one fuel in certain regions) result in various amounts of the predominant emissions, C02, SOz and NOx, related to the energy losses incurred. The emissions related to the energy losses incurred during the operation or use of the power generating plant are then translated into monetary units. These monetary units are associated with the environmental impact of the power generating plant. For the preferred embodiment, the amount of emissions can be valued by such monetary costs as regional and/or national taxes imposed on emissions, retrofit costs (e. g., for converting coal-fired power plants to biomass power plants) in order to reduce emissions, restoration costs for environmentally degraded areas (e. g., restoring acidified lakes and soil, etc.), emissions trading (e. g., plant owners trading for C02 emission allowance certificates, etc). The monetary units (dollars, kronors, pounds, pesos, etc.) related to the environmental impact of operating different power generating plants are readily understood and can be compared for use in marketing of such equipment. In other embodiments, the environmental impact of other electrical systems, equipment or products (e. g., power transmission and/or transformer systems and equipment, power consumption equipment, etc.) can also be translated into monetary terms and compared for marketing or other purposes.

Specifically, FIGUREs 2A and 2B are related flow diagrams of an exemplary method 100 that can be used to implement the present invention. The flow diagrams shown in FIGUREs 2A and 2B represent an algorithm that can be implemented in proprietary or commercially available software and executed by an appropriate digital processor, such as, for example, a processor in a personal computer, lap top, notebook, general purpose computer, mobile or fixed terminal, etc. In this regard, a user can implement the method 100 locally (e. g., on a personal computer) or remotely (e. g., from a terminal connected to the processor via the a network such as the Internet) using an Internet embodiment as suggested below. For the preferred embodiment, the method shown in FIGUREs 2A and 2B can be implemented with a standard spread sheet application software or similar package. For a different embodiment, the method shown in FIGUREs 2A and 2B can be implemented as software suitable for use over the Internet, such as, for example, an applet, executable application or agent, which is written or programmed in an object oriented program language with object oriented code such as Java (Trade Mark) and/or Smalltalk (Trade Mark).

The preferred embodiment also includes a relational database (not explicitly shown) of selected inventory items. The database can include detailed information related to the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment or products, such as, for example, data related to the extraction of raw materials (e. g., mining, oil extraction, etc.) used in the manufacture of electrical products, energy consumption of electrical products, manufacturing processes for electrical products, transportation of the materials and components for electrical products, waste by- products associated with the manufacture, use and disposal of electrical products, degree of disposal and recycling of materials from electrical products, etc. Preferably, a relational database is used (but not necessarily required), because a relational database can handle relatively large sets of data in an effective

and secure way, and can be a very powerful tool for searching for and collating information.

For this embodiment, the database also includes regional information about the characteristic electricity blends for each region or country to be analyzed. For each characteristic regional electricity blend or mixture, the database includes information about specific amounts of the predominant emissions (e. g., C02, SO2 and NOX) output per kiloWatt hour (kWh) due to power generation in that region. For this embodiment, a characteristic electricity blend or mixture is represented by an average value for the electricity produced in a region over an entire life cycle of the system, equipment or product involved. For example, the database can include characteristic electricity blends or mixtures for regional oil-fired power generation, where oil extraction, transport, refining, flue gas cleaning, and average values of efficiency are factors that can be considered. Also, for certain regions, the database can include a single fuel instead of a blend or mixture. Alternatively, the energy mixes can include simpler data such as energy produced, or emissions released per state, region or city without using data from an entire LCA (e. g., emissions from a complete life cycle are more complicated data).

Examples of such energy mixes are provided by the United States Department of Energy at: http://www. eia. doe. gov/cneaf/electricity/st-profiles/toc. html.

Returning to FIGUREs 2A and 2B, at step 102 of the method, a user can select an electrical technology application (or combination of technology applications) to be analyzed. For the preferred embodiment, the electrical power generation application 104a is selected. As such, the flow diagram shown in FIGURE 2B is directed more clearly to this embodiment.

However, the present invention is not limited only to power generation applications and can also include other types of applications, such as, for example, power transmission and

transformer applications 104b, or applications whereby the equipment consumes electrical power (e. g., motors, etc.) 104c.

Notably, another embodiment of the present invention, which can be used for assessing electricity consuming products such as small motors, is described in detail below. In any event, as illustrated by the flow diagram shown in FIGUREs 2A and 2B, the steps for economic valuation of the environmental impact of electrical systems, equipment or products are similar for each of the different embodiments shown (power generation 104a, power transmission and transformation 104b, and power consumption 104c).

For the preferred embodiment, the power generation application 104a is selected.

At this point, it is useful to describe some details about the power generation plants used in the preferred embodiment to illustrate the present invention. As mentioned above, for this embodiment, the environmental impact of the Powerformer plant is compared with that of a conventional power generating system (see FIGURE 1). The Powerformer and conventional power generating system in the following specific example are both configured for connection to a 130 kV transmission network. In this regard, the apparent power of the Powerformer is 128 MVA, and that of the conventional generator is 136 MVA. The power efficiency of the Powerformer is 98.5%, and that of the conventional generator is 98.4%. The power factor for the Powerformer is 0.95, and that for the conventional generator is 0.9. The apparent power of the conventional system's step-up transformer is 350 MVA, and its power efficiency is 99.47%. As such, the Powerformer is configured to provide the same active and reactive power to the grid as that provided by the conventional system with its generator and step-up transformer. The basic functional unit for the Powerformer and conventional generating system is 1 MWh of electricity.

For this embodiment, the materials inventory in the relational database for the Powerformer includes the generator 10, surge arrester 13, and cables up to, but not including, the high voltage

switching equipment. The inventory in the relational database for the conventional system includes the generator 1, step-up transformer 4, surge arresters 3a, 3b, transformers (not shown), and conductor rails. Since the Powerformer has no step-up transformer and certain other components required by the conventional system, the Powerformer needs less material during manufacture than the conventional system, and therefore, the Powerformer has less material to dispose of at the end of its life cycle than the conventional system. Furthermore, the Powerformer uses cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) for insulation, which is more environmentally friendly than the epoxies used for insulation in the conventional systems.

FIGURES 3A and 3B are related diagrams that show the consumption of material resources of copper and steel, respectively, used for manufacturing the Powerformer and conventional system per MWh of electricity produced. As shown, the consumption of copper is higher during the manufacture of the conventional system than for the Powerformer, but the opposite is true for the consumption of steel.

The environmental impact incurred during the operation or use of the Powerformer and conventional system is indirect and caused by electrical losses that an operator has to compensate for. The operating losses in a generator originate in different parts of the apparatus. These losses are converted to heat which is removed by cooling. The power generating system operating losses are divided into two parts: no-load losses; and load losses. The no- load losses are created when a generator is idling and there is no current in the stator winding. These losses are caused by iron losses and mechanical losses (i. e., no-load losses). However, when there is current in the stator winding during operation, load losses are incurred. In calculating the total losses incurred during the operation of a power generating system, it can be assumed that the no-load losses are constant, and the load losses vary with the square of the current in the stator winding. Since

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 the load on the generator varies each day throughout the year, it can be assumed that the operational load losses also vary with time.

For this exemplary embodiment, the energy losses (in kWh) for the Powerformer and conventional system (for the example previously described for connection to a 130 kV transmission network) are calculated from their respective power efficiency and power factor values. The operational period for both plants is set to 30 years.

In an example taken from a particular service pattern, a service life of 30 years and some thousands of hours per year are determined using a planned load pattern.

A prospective utility might, for example, specify 1,000 hours at 50% load, 2,000 hours at 75% load, and 2,000 hours at 100% load.

From the annual hours at a specific load, the total electrical losses incurred while operating the Powerformer in this example for one year are 15,814 MWh and 474,422 MWh for 30 years. The electrical losses incurred while operating the conventional power generating system for one year are 22,962 MWh and 688,864 MWh for 30 years. Notably, these energy losses are higher in the conventional system than in the Powerformer primarily because of the step-up transformer's energy losses.

For this embodiment, it can be assumed that at the end of the useful life of the Powerformer and conventional power generating system, all metallic material in the generator is recycled, polymers are incinerated, and the remaining material is disposed of appropriately.

The environmental impact from energy losses is incurred when the losses have to be replaced by energy produced by other'electricity sources in a region. In this regard, it can be assumed that the fraction of electricity generated from different sources within a region are constant for a relatively long period of time. However, the electricity mix can vary substantially from region to region.

For example, electricity is produced in Sweden with approximately

52% hydro-electric power, 44% nuclear power, and 4% fossil fuels.

On the other hand, electricity is produced in Germany with approximately 62% fossil fuel, 34% nuclear power, and 4% hydro-electric power.

The power generating system resources and emissions data can be grouped into a number of environmental impact categories in the relational database. These categories describe such effects as global warming (greenhouse effect), acidification, and ozone depletion. For example, SO2 and NOX emissions are included in the acidification impact category. As such, FIGUREs 4A and 4B are related diagrams that show, respectively, the global warming potential per MWh of electricity produced and acidification potential per MWh of electricity produced for the life cycle phases of the Powerformer and conventional power generating system. As illustrated by FIGUREs 4A and 4B, the use or operational phase for both the Powerformer and conventional system is the predominant phase. In other words, the largest impact on the environment is incurred during the operation of each plant, which is due to the relatively long operating time covered (many years). As such, the manufacture of the Powerformer and conventional system plays only a minor part in the environmental impact incurred over their entire life cycles.

The environmental impact of the operational losses incurred depends on the manner by which the electricity is generated. For this exemplary embodiment, it is assumed that loss compensation is carried out with an electricity production mix in the United States, which is based on approximately 20% nuclear power, 10% hydro-electric power, and 70% fossil fuel. As such, the contribution to global warming is primarily from C02 emissions. other gas contributors to global warming are CH4 and N20. As such, CH4 and N20 emissions are usually less important as contributors to global warming and are disregarded in this exemplary embodiment. Alternatively, CH4 and NOx may be expressed as C02 equivalents.

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 Referring again to FIGURE 4A, it can be seen that the conventional power generating system has a higher global warming potential than the Powerformer. However, the gas contribution to acidification comes from S02 and NOx emissions. As an alternative, the environmental impact values for such gases as NOx can be expressed as S02 equivalents. Referring again to FIGURE 4B, it can be seen that the conventional power generating system has a higher acidification potential than the Powerformer.

FIGURE 5 is a diagram that shows the weights of the predominant emissions, C02, NOX and SO2 per MWh of electricity produced during the Powerformer's and conventional system's different life cycle phases. As shown, the conventional power generating system produces higher levels of emissions to air than the Powerformer.

Returning to the flow diagram shown in FIGUREs 2A and 2B, for this embodiment, at step 106a, a user selects one or more technical performance parameters as input data for calculating energy losses for the power generating systems involved. These performance parameters can include, for example, power efficiency at different loads, load cycle information, system availability, and rated power. As such, based on the above described information, the following assumptions can be made: (1) increased efficiency leads to lower losses that replace regionally produced electricity; (2) the fraction of electricity generated from different sources in a region varies only slightly over a relatively long period of time; the environmental impact of a power generating system is dominated by its operational or use phase; and the emissions of C02, S02 and NOX produced during the use phase of a power generating system dominate its environmental impact. Given the above information, the economic valuation of the environmental impact of power generating systems can be simplified by including only those energy losses incurred during the use phase for a system, 15 and the predominant air emissions Of C02, NOX, and S02. Also, for illustrative purposes, it can be assumed that the energy losses

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 incurred are replaced either by electricity produced in the United States or by electricity generated from European stone coal.

At step 108, the user selects the power generating systems to be evaluated. For this embodiment, one system selected (108a) is the Powerformer, and the second system selected (108a') is a conventional power generating system. However, the present invention is not limited only to a method for economic valuation of the environmental impact of power generating systems and can also include other electrical systems, equipment or products such as, for example, power transmission systems, power transformers, engines, motors, or systems composed of combinations of the same.

At step 110a, the energy losses per relevant time period (kWh) are calculated for each of the power generating systems involved. In this example, the energy loss calculations are based on one year's operation. As such, FIGUREs 6A and 6B are related diagrams that show the emissions to air which are related to energy losses replaced by the electricity generation mix for the United States, and by electricity generation from European stone coal, respectively. As shown in FIGURE 6B, a large amount of fossil fuel in the energy production mix results in relatively high levels of emissions to the air.

At step 112, the user selects a region for a specific blend of electricity and its emission profile, in order to calculate the environmental impact costs for the system (s) being assessed and/or compared. This region could be a number of countries, one country, or a region within a country. In this example, it is assumed that the losses calculated in step 110a are to be replaced either by electricity from the United States, or by electricity generated by European stone coal. As such, FIGUREs 6A and 6B are related diagrams that show the emissions to air which are related to energy losses replaced by the electricity generation mix for the United States, and by electricity generation from European stone coal, respectively.

As shown in FIGURE 6B, a large amount of fossil fuel in the energy production mixture results in relatively high levels of emissions to the air. As shown in FIGURE 2B, the emissions from a region are represented as kg emitted per kWh.

At step 114, the user selects the economic valuation method to be used for assessing the power generation system (s) involved. For this embodiment, the valuation of the regional effects of emissions is performed according to Swedish authority, whereby the cost for C02 emissions is set at 0.05 $US/kg, the cost for NOX emissions is 5.4 $US/kg, and the cost for S02 emissions is 2 $US/kg. As such, for this embodiment, the values used for the nitrogen oxide emissions correspond to the regional fees imposed for emissions from large combustion plants. The values used for C02 and S02 emissions are based on national and/or regional political decisions regarding taxes on emissions. Again, these values can be based on one or more environmentally-related costs, such as taxes imposed on emissions, costs to repair environmental damage, retrofit costs, trading of future emissions, etc.

At step 116, the environmental costs for the energy losses incurred for the power generating system (s) being assessed are calculated according to the formula: $US/kg (from step 114) *kg emitted/kWh (from step 112) *kWh (from step 110a) = $US. As such, FIGUREs 7A and 7B are related diagrams that show the emission costs incurred for the Powerformer and conventional power generating system in $US/year related to the energy losses replaced by the electricity generation mix in the United States and by electricity generated from European stone coal, respectively. As shown, for the economic valuation performed in this embodiment, the environmental cost for the Powerformer is lower than that of the conventional system. This results from the fact that the Powerformer has a higher power efficiency than the conventional system, and consequently, the Powerformer incurs lower energy losses during its operation than those incurred by the conventional power generating system.

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 FIGURE 7C is a schematic display of an application of an embodiment of the present invention to a comparison of electrical generators. Referring to FIGURE 7C, it can be seen how data input in various fields in order results in a comparison of the environmental cost for two generators. For this example, the fields shown in FIGURE 7C can be associated with the following steps of the method shown in FIGUREs 2A and 2B: the Input and Losses fields (7106) can be associated with step 106a; the Choice of region field (7112) can be associated with step 112a; the Choice of evaluation model (method) field (7114) can be associated with step 114a; and the Results field, (7116) can be associated with step 116a. The cost ($US) is shown in the Environmental cost box beside the selected currency.

At step 118, the present values for the environmental costs from step 116 are calculated. FIGUREs 8A and 8B are related diagrams that show the present values of the emission costs related to energy losses replaced by the electricity mix in the United States and from electricity generated from European stone coal, respectively, for the Powerformer and conventional power generating system. The results for a United States energy mix (FIG. 8A) and European stone coal (FIG. 8B) show the resulting savings under the heading'Difference"and are values expressed in $US millions. For this embodiment, the present values shown have been calculated using an annual interest rate of 4% and an operational period of 30 years. As shown, these monetary values represent the environmental impact of the power generating systems being assessed and/or compared. Also, these monetary values are readily understandable and relatively easy for sales persons and customers to use for marketing or other purposes.

FIGURE 9 is a simplified block diagram of a method that can be used to implement a second embodiment of the present invention.

For this embodiment, a method is provided for performing an economic valuation of the environmental impact of an electrical consumption product. As such, the method can be used to compare

the environmental"cost"of small electric motors, such as, for example, motors that drive refrigerator compressors. Referring to FIGUREs 2A and 9 (FIGURE 9 is directed to the consumption part of the method shown in FIGURE 2A), at step 102 of the method, a user selects the electrical consumption application (104c) to be analyzed.

At step 106c, a user selects one or more technical performance parameters as input data for calculating energy usage for the power consumption products (motors) involved. For this embodiment, these technical parameters include a rated power of 5.5 kW for each product, a life span of 50,000 hours for each product, an efficiency of 90.5% for one product 108c (a high efficiency electric motor manufactured by ABB), and an efficiency of 85% for the second product 108c' (a standard efficiency electric motor).

At step 110c, the energy usage per relevant time period (kWh) is calculated for each of the power consumption products involved.

For this embodiment, the energy usage calculations are based on 50,000 hours operation. The energy usage calculations begin by first calculating the input power for each product being analyzed: input power = output power/efficiency.

For the ABB product, the input power equals 5.5kW/0.905 or 6.08kW.

For the competitor's product, the input power equals 5.5kW/0.85 or 6.47kW. Next, the energy used by each product is calculated: energy used = input power*life span.

For the ABB product, the energy used equals 6.08kW*50, OOOh or 304, OOOkWh. For the competitor's product, the energy used equals 6.47kW*50, OOOh or 323,500kWh.

At step 112, the user selects a region for a specific blend of electricity and its emission profile, in order to calculate the environmental impact costs for the product (s) being assessed and/or compared. For this embodiment, Germany has been selected as the region. As shown in FIGURE 9, the emissions for a region are

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 represented as kg emitted per kWh. As such, in Germany, the emitted C02 per kWh (from the electricity blend) is 0.64 kg/kWh.

At step 114, the user selects the economic valuation method to be used for assessing the power consumption product (s) involved. For this embodiment, the valuation of the regional effects of emissions is performed according to German authority, whereby the cost for reduced C02 emissions is 0.021 $US/kg. As such, for this embodiment, the values used for the carbon dioxide emissions are based on the retrofit costs incurred for converting a coal-fired plant to a biomass plant.

At step 116, the environmental costs for the energy usages incurred for the power consumption product (s) being assessed are calculated according to the formula: $US/kg (from step 114) *kg emitted/kWh (from step 112) *kWh (from step 110a) = $US.

As such, for the ABB product: 0.021 $US/kg*0.64kg/kWh*304,000 kWh = 4,086 $US.

For the competitor's product: 0.021 $US/kg*0.64kg/kWh*323,500 kWh = 4,348 $US.

For this embodiment, the economic value of the environmental impact of the ABB motor is less costly than that of the competitor's product.

Another application of the present invention is to economically evaluate the environmental performance of electrical systems comprising non traditional energy sources, energy storage means and transmission or distribution means. FIGURE 10 shows for example a wind-driven generator of a conventional type 1001, and a wind-driven generator including an electrical generator of the Powerformer type 1005. The conventional wind-driven generator comprises a gearbox 1002 to increase the rotational speed of the wind turbine so as to drive a generator 1003 to produce a high voltage AC current. The current produced is then stepped up in a transformer 1004 and then connected via a transmission line to a power network.

The Powerformer type wind-driven generator 1005 uses a permanent magnet rotor in the Powerformer type generator 1006. It requires no gearbox or transformer, operates at variable speed and generates a variable low voltage AC current directly from the wind turbine. FIGURE 11 shows a Powerformer type wind-driven generator 1005 which is in this example placed out to sea. The technology makes it possible to build offshore wind farms with capacities ranging from 6 to more than 300 megawatts (MW). In a simplified representation the wind-driven Powerformer generator 1005 is shown, with a passive diode converter 1101, and a DC cable link 1102 to land. On land a DC/AC converter station 1103 is shown.

High voltage AC is then transmitted by a cable link to a power network 1104.

In the Powerform type wind generator the low frequency alternating current generated is converted by the passive diode rectifier 1101 to direct current (DC), which is transmitted via cables to a land- based converter station, where the direct current is converted back to sinus formed alternating current for feeding to the high- voltage grid. The energy generated is transmitted via the land- based converter station to the high-voltage grid without the need for an offshore platform for a transformer and switchgear.

The invention may applied to evaluate economically an impact of environmental loads or emissions from a wind-driven Powerformer generator of the type described above. The method may be applied to a complete system of generator, DC cable, converter station, DC cable to grid and compared with, for example; a biomass fired power station; a conventional oil, coal, or nuclear-fired power station, with transformer and with transmission lines to grid; or compared with a standard type of wind powered generator and system.

Another example to economically evaluate the environmental performance of electrical systems is the evaluation of

WO 01/20496 PCT/SEOO/01757 arrangements of electrical apparatus comprising renewable energy sources such as solar cells, heat pumps, tidal or wave energy machines. Further, the invention may be used to evaluate the performance other energy generators such as fuel cells and microturbines.

Another, further example is the evaluation of systems comprising an energy storage means. The energy storage means may comprise a traditional technique such as a battery system for storing electrical charge, or water management means such as, pumps, reservoirs and turbines for storing kinetic energy for later re- use or energy conversion. A storage means may also comprise a gas management means, such as pumps, vessels and recovery or conversion means such as turbines, engines, reactor apparatus or fuel cells.

As described previously, the method shown in FIGs 2A and 2B is implementable as software suitable for use over the Internet by means of Hypertext MarkUp Language (HTML) code, Java (Trade Mark) programming, eXtensible Markup Language (XML) pages and the like.

In an advantageous use of the invention, one or more software implementations of the method may be arranged accessible from and connected to an Internet based system for marketing and sales of electrical equipment and products. By this means a prospective customer can browse information about an electrical product, be linked to further web pages wherein the economical cost of an environmental impact of a product or equipment may evaluated according to the present invention, and then return to, or proceed to web pages or other means in a buying or procurement process.

Thus a prospective customer can simply and with ease of understanding determine an economic valuation of an environmental impact of an electrical product and then go on to purchase the product. Such a buying decision that may be applied to a relatively simple purchase decision such as a motor or to a relatively complex procurement process such as a power generation or distribution system.

Although a preferred embodiment of the method and apparatus of the present invention has been illustrated in the accompanying Drawings and described in the foregoing Detailed Description, it will be understood that the invention is not limited to the embodiment disclosed, but is capable of numerous rearrangements, modifications and substitutions without departing from the spirit of the invention as set forth and defined by the following claims.