A survey, conducted with transformer professionals, shows disconnect between transformer operators and budget decision makers, with some decisions unduly increasing the risk of failure, fatality or fire posed by transformers
The findings, released by MIDEL, reveal that while safety is perceived to be a top boardroom concern, over half of recommendations are being denied or delayed with cost cited as the major cause in 56 per cent of these decisions. More pressing commercial (38 per cent) and engineering (36 per cent) priorities also score highly.
In turn, 44 per cent of respondents lack confidence in their board’s ability to properly mitigate transformer-related risk.
Barry Menzies, managing director of MIDEL, said, “In the face of failure, the impact on business continuity and reputation will always far outweigh the cost of mitigating transformer risk. Evaluating risk mitigation recommendations solely on the grounds of capex short-sighted.
“Many improvements – both for safety and for optimisation – have far-reaching benefits that are only properly captured when considering the lifecycle of the improvement.
“Indeed, when factoring in reduced insurance and maintenance costs, as well as improvements to reliability, resiliency and sustainability, many more risk mitigation strategies stack up financially.”
As the world’s transformer fleet ages, and more demands are placed upon them by continued electrification and intermittent renewables, the environment in which transformers operate is increasingly challenging, creating more maintenance issues, overloading and winding failure.
Concurrently, the survey revealed a noticeable shift towards condition-based maintenance, with nearly half of respondents having recommended it to mitigate transformer related risk in the past 12 months. Changes to maintenance regimes (34 per cent) asset replacement (34 per cent), asset repair and reconditioning (32 per cent) and substation upgrade (33 per cent) recommendations were also popular.
“Decision makers are being presented with a range of options to reduce transformer risk which makes it even more concerning that many respondents do not see their recommendations implemented fully.
“This suggests that the benefits of these recommendations are getting lost in translation. It may be that engineers need to reframe these recommendations to catch the ear of decision makers, for example, by conveying the commercial implications of transformer risk for aspects such as insurance” Menzies added.
