Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nahial, NJ. V. REE, Caliao, ND. PhD, Caasi, A. REE, Mejorada, G.REE
ABSTRACT In the world of electricity today, due to the ever increasing usage of power electronics and sensitive load equipment the demand of electric power in the country is escalating. The power generation crisis and power quality has been the issue in the power industry nowadays. Hence, with this continuing issues and problems arises in the power industry, Embedded Generation or Distributed Generation (DG) was introduced. With the advent of deregulation, Distributed generation (DG) is anticipated in the future that it will play an increasing role in electric distribution systems. Thus, DG could have a significant impact on the power flow, voltage profile, voltage stability and the power quality for both customers and electricity suppliers. Therefore, its introduction requires a suitable tool to analyze the influence of different DG technologies on the distribution system. In this paper, it is aimed to analyze and study the actual model of distribution system with considerable DG technologies penetration. Also, its objective is to provide: (1) technical assessment of the impact of DG technologies in the distribution system with respect to the distribution losses and voltage profile under DG different configurations; (2) simple economic analysis on the different DG technology. In addition, the power flow analysis and voltage profile impacts of DG on the distribution system are studied under different load conditions considering the given forecasted data of peak demand of the sample system. In which after all, leads to a practical solutions of the possible impact of DG.
Keywords: Distributed Generation, Distribution Losses, voltage profile, economic aspect of DG (NPV and PBP)
I.
INTRODUCTION Nowadays, the application of Distributed Generation (DG) in the power system has given more importance and it is anticipated that in the future it will have an important role in electric power systems. DG will have positive and negative impacts on distribution networks. This impact affects aspect like losses, investments (such as DG technologies) and power quality [1]. In which this issues will be investigate and analyze further in this paper. Distributed generation is a concept of installing and operating small electric generators connected directly to the distribution network or at the customer side, typically less than 15 MW, but sometimes up to 100 MW. The premise of distributed generation is to provide electricity to a customer at a reduced cost and more efficiently with reduced losses than the traditional utility central generating plant with transmission and distribution losses [6]. Some of these DG technologies offer high efficiency, resulting in low fuel costs, but emit a fair amount of pollutants (CO and NOx); others are environmentally clean but are not currently cost-effective. Still others are well suited for peaking applications but lack durability for continuous power output (where DG is operated at least 6,000 hours per year). With so much to consider, it is often difficult for decision makers to determine which technology is best suited to meet their specific energy needs [8]. The power system faces many problems when distributed generation is added in the already existing system; this is because the power system is not designed with distributed generation in mind. The addition of generation could influence power quality problems, degradation in system reliability, reduction in the efficiency, over voltages and safety issues. On the other side, the power system distribution are well designed which could handle the addition of generation if there is proper grounding, transformers and protection is provided. But there are limits to the addition of distributed generations if it goes beyond its limit then it is important to modify and change the already designed distributed system equipment and protection, which could in a result facilitate the integration of new generation. This addition of the equipment could involve protection relays, switchgears, change of the voltage regulation system, revised grounding and transfer trips [2]. Thus, power quality has become a real problem over the last decade due to increasing use of power electronic equipment in power system [6]. With the given distribution system model in this paper, the addition of Distributed Generation in the distribution system can have a significant effect in the distribution losses and voltage profile. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to analyze the power flow and the voltage profile of the distribution system with the given historical and forecasted data of peak demand
(KW) and energy sales (KWHR) of the sample distribution system considering the different configuration of the DG and a comparison of the simple economic analysis of different DG technology.
2.2 Payback Period (PBP) The payback period (PBP) is a measure of the time required for an initial investment to be recovered, neglecting the time value of money. It is intuitively the measure that describes how long something takes to "pay for itself"; shorter payback periods are obviously preferable to longer payback periods (all else being equal). Thus if Cfo represents the initial investment and CFj is the net cash flow for the jth year (j=1, 2, 3,., n), the payback period satisfies:
II.
RELATED ECONOMIC ASPECTS In this chapter the Economic components such as Payback Period (PBP), initial investment cost per installed generation plant considering (Packaged and Installation Cost of the plant), Net Present Value (NPV), Equivalent Cash Flows and Levelizing or (annualized cost of the project), Operation and Maintenance Cost, Depreciation Cost, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and other economic parameters were being calculated and discussed to understand more of the concept on how would these parameters be a basis on choosing a better project or DG technologies to allocate the demand of electricity in the future (30 years). Each parameter is clearly given with appropriate equations and discussion to have a more understanding of the calculation in every parameter.
CF0 =
CF
J =1
PBP
(4)
j
If the yearly cash net inflows are equal, or if an average value is used, then the above equation would be:
PBP =
CF0 YCF
(5)
2.1 Equivalent Cash Flows and Levelizing It is convenient to express a series of payments that are irregular or variable as equivalent equal payments in regular intervals; in other words, one replaces non uniform series by equivalent uniform or level series. This technique is referred to as levelizing. It is useful because regularity facilitates understanding and planning. To develop the formulas, one must calculate the present value (P) of a series of N equal annual payments A. If the first payment occurs at the end of the first year, its present value is A/(1 + rd). For the second year it is A/(1 + rd)2, etc. Adding all the present values from year 1 to N gives the total present value [9];
Where: YCF represents the (average) yearly cash flow YFC = Annual Energy Sales (Php) + Annual Energy Sales saved per year Annual Cost to generate power O and M Cost per year Depreciation Cost PBP is the Payback Period With this method, the criterion is that the project with the lowest pay-back period would be preferred than others. 2.3 Initial Investment Cost per KW Installed The initial invest cost per KW installed is composed of two components: Installation Cost Cost necessary to prepare a packaged unit for operation on a site. These costs include engineering studies, permitting, interconnection, and set-up expenses. Packaged Cost Cost for all equipment in a complete generator set including the prime mover, generator, and packaging.
(1)
2.4 Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance (%) --- The percentage taken from the Investment cost per KW, but the annual operation and maintenance cost of the new power transformer is taken from the annual cost of the project. Operations and Maintenance (Php./KW -yr) --Annual Operation Cost (such as employee salary, employee benefits, etc,.) and Annual Maintenance Expenses of the proposed project. It is the product of O and M percentage and the Investment Cost per KW.
(2) Thus, the annualized cost with respect to present value is: rd (1 + i ) N (3) A = P (1 + rd ) N 1
2.5 Net Present Value (NPV) Net present value (NPV) is a standard method for the financial appraisal of long-term projects. Used for capital budgeting, and widely throughout economics, it measures the excess or shortfall of cash flows, in present value (PV) terms, once financing charges are met [4]. The net present value (NPV) of a cash flow stream is the sum of the present values of each of the cash. NPV is given by the expression:
2.6 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The internal rate of return (IRR) of a cash flow stream is the discount rate, which makes discounted cash inflows equal to discounted cash outflows, i.e., NPV = 0. This means that in case the discount rate is similar to the IRR, the capital invested in a project does not yield any net benefit, but on the other hand no net losses are suffered. A project is a good investment proposition if its IRR is greater than the rate of return that could be earned by alternative investments. Thus, the IRR should be compared to an alternative cost of capital including an appropriate risk premium [10]. The IRR is determined with the help of the following expression:
CFi (1 + r )i i =0
Where:
(6)
CFi is the net cash flow in period i (i.e., cash inflow in period i minus cash outflow in period i) r = discount rate n = number of periods. NPV is an indicator of how much value an investment or project adds to the value of the firm. The criterion of the NPV method is to consider a project attractive if the NPV of its cash flow stream is positive for a given interest rate. This method is suitable to classify projects, which are mutually exclusive, i.e., once project alternative is carried out, the realization of another alternative is no longer possible. Mutually exclusive project is that when at most one project out of the group can be chosen [10]. Below is the sum up table of various NPV situations:
If... It means... Then...
(1 + r )
i =0
CFi
=0
(7)
This equation produces values for r that are precisely the internal rates of return of the flow. Alternatively, we could find, by trial and error, i-values for which the NPV is slightly positive and slightly negative, and interpolate linearly between them for i* (IRR) [10]. 2.7 Benefit/Cost Ratio A benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is an indicator, used in the formal discipline of cost-benefit analysis, which attempts to summarize the overall value for money of a project or proposal. It is the ratio of the total present value of benefits during the service life of the project to the total present value of the cost. A project is accepted for investment if B/C ratio is greater than or equal to unity and rejected otherwise. [http://www.soi.wide.ad.jp/class/20070041/slides/08/2 6.html] 2.8 DG Terminology for Economic Parameters: Load Factor (%) - The average rate of power consumption during some period of time divided by the maximum rate of power consumption during that period. Total Present Cost to Generate Power - The total present expenses to generate power for 30 years in operation Annual Cost to Generate Power - The annual expenses in generating power to its required annual energy demand Generation Cost (Php.) per KWHR (rate) Generation rate (Php per KWhr) of the plant Cost to Generate Power (Php./KWhr) - Cost to generate power per Kwhr such as fuel for Diesel and Coal for Coal fired plant, etc. Total Present Cost of Annual Energy Sales Saved - The total present Cost of energy saved
the investment NPV would add value the project may be accepted >0 to the firm the investment NPV would subtract < 0 value from the firm
We should be indifferent in the decision whether to accept or reject the investment the project. This project adds no NPV would neither monetary value. Decision should be = 0 gain nor lose based on other criteria, e.g. strategic value for the firm positioning or other factors not explicitly included in the calculation.
It is important that the result should be greater than zero 0 or else the project is not acceptable.
when the different project is implemented in the Distribution system for 30 years Note: For the power transformer project, the Generation Cost (Php/KWhr) rate is the Distribution rate (rate of the Distribution Company) and the Cost to Generate Power (Php/ KWhr) is the rate (from the Generation Company and NGCP)
MW LOSSES = 0.6093 MW
A
bus 6
A
1%
A m ps
Feeder 1
A
1%
A m ps
bus 8
A
bus 7
A
11 %
A m ps
3%
A m ps
5%
A m ps
bus 9
8%
A m ps
1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar
2 7%
Am p s
bus 14
14 %
A m ps
bus 19 bus 20
1 8%
Am p s
44 %
A m ps
bus 15
A A
94%
M VA
59 %
A m ps
69 %
A m ps
54 %
A m ps A
s lack
1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg
Substation
Feeder 2
2%
Am p s
bus 16
A
bus 17
A
1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar
III.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
30 %
A m ps
In this section, a suitable software has been used to model the actual 3-feeders and 30-buses distribution system. Several scenarios were simulated under different DG configurations and different load conditions in order to compare the results with respect to its distribution losses and voltage profile. To investigate and solve the problem arises in the system, the Historical and Forecasted Data of Peak demand (KW) and Energy Sales (KWhr) were needed in manipulating the simulation, the data are shown in Figure A-1 and A-2 for Peak Demand Data and Figure A-3 and A-4 for Energy Demand Data in the Apendix A page. The following simulation of the actual distribution system were analyzed and investigated base on its result with respect to the DG configuration and loading condition of the system.
1 1%
Am p s
bus 28
A
7%
Am p s
35 %
A m ps
31 %
A m ps A
6%
A m ps
bus 30
bus 26
Figure 3.1 Distribution System Without Distributed Generation (DG) at year 2010
the
3.2 Distribution System Without the Distributed Generation (DG) at year 2039
In figure 3.2, it shows the condition of the distribution system in the year 2039 wherein the substation is overload to 176% rating and the transmission lines from Main feeder to bus 18 are congested with respect to its line capacity limit. For this reason, the system really needs new power generation technologies and other projects to stabilize the system. For the problem that arises in the system, thus the application of DG will be evaluated further on what is its impact in the system if it is connected. The next model of the system will be choosing of the optimal location of the DG in order to achieve the best results in both voltage profile and distribution losses in the system.
0.9901 pu -91.24 Deg
A
3.1 Distribution System Without the Distributed Generation (DG) at year 2010 An existing distribution system in Mindanao shown in Figure 3.1 were modeled to evaluate the power flow analysis, voltage profile and the performance of the system when there is a penetration of DG in the system. As shown in the figure, the power output of the substation for the whole distribution system reaches near to its maximum rating at 93.7% rating in the year 2010, with this systems condition it is in need of extra power generation to make the system more stabilize and safe. Without the DG in the system, the actual MW loss and MVAr loss for the whole system reaches to 0.6093 MW and 0.4822 MVAr, respectively. As a result, there are buses in the system where the p.u. voltages are low, such as bus 30 which get the lowest value. So much for the result of the simulation of this case for the year 2010 to 2015, it is shown in Apendix B page; the capacity profile; the voltage profile; and active and the reactive power loss in the system.
bus 6
A
2% A m ps
Feeder 1
A
2% A m ps
bus 8
A
bus 7
A
16 ps % Am
5% Am p s
8% A m ps
MW LOSSES = 2.3061 MW
A
bus 9
13% Amp s
58 ps % Am
2.3583 MW
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar
bus 14
2 Am p s 3%
bus 19 bus 20
32 ps % Am
91%
Amps
bus 15
0.8217 pu -94.90 Deg 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar
Figure 3.2 Distribution System Without Distributed Generation (DG) at year 2039
slack
116%
Amps
135%
Amps
110%
Amps
A
176%
MVA
3% Am p s
bus 16
A
bus 17
A
2.243 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar
54% Amp s
19% Amp s
bus 28
A
12% Amp s
63% Amp s
5 Am p s 8%
A
9% Am ps
bus 30
bus 26
the
3.3 Choosing the Optimal Location of Distributed Generation (DG) Figure 3.3 shows the model in choosing the optimal location of the DG in the distribution system at peak load demand in the year 2010. Through simulation using a suitable tool or software, the basis in choosing the best location for the DG is through its result using software as shown in Table 3.1. In this simulation the configuration of the DG is at unity power factor with 8.5 MW maximum output. Base on the result at Table 3.3, location of DG at bus 17 gives a best results to a less active and reactive loss for the system. Aside from the result, it is better to put the DG at bus 17 because if ever there would be an upgrade of DG in terms to its power output the great impact would be that the line from bus 17 to bus 18 will be congested with respect to its line capacity limit. Another reason, when the DG is set to a different configuration or settings, it results to a less reduction of distribution losses when the location of DG is at bus 18 compared to at bus 17.
0 MW 0 Mvar Feeder 1 0 MW 0 Mvar bus 6
A
For the next model of the system, there is now the application of DG with a configuration of unity power factor on its system.
3.4 Distribution System With Distributed Generation (DG) At Unity Power Factor at year 2010 In Figure 3.4, it shows the model of distribution system with the penetration of DG at unity power factor. Investigating the model, with the presence of DG in the system it shows a good results. Compared to the system without a DG, it shows a big difference regarding on the results of the distribution losses and voltage profile of the system which is shown in Graph and Table B-2 and B-3, respectively. From 609.3 KW and 482.2 KVAr loss of active and reactive power, respectively without the DG, it reduce to 522.9 KW active power and 0370.5 KVAr reactive power. As a result, it leads to increase the p.u. voltages in each bus; as well as it reduces the active and reactive power that flows in most of the transmission lines because the source of power is now divided into two locations. In connection, it really reduces the distribution losses and increases the p.u. voltages in the system. However, the p.u. voltage at bus 30 does not reach to its minimum range which is 0.9 even if there is now the presence of DG. One of the reason, it is too far from the DG and from the Substation. For this problem, a possible solution would be the installation of capacitor banks near bus 30 to enhance the voltage profile in that area. For further investigation of the results for this simulation, it is shown in Apendix B page.
0 MW 0 Mvar
A
Am ps
Location of DG at bus 17
0.9961 pu -90.53 Deg
A
1%
Am ps
bus 7 bus 8
A
17%
Am ps
0 MW 0 Mvar
11%
Am ps
3%
Am ps
5%
Am ps
MW LOSSES = 0.5480 MW
A
9%
Am ps
0 MW 0 Mvar
26%
Am ps
bus 14
14%
Am ps
bus 19 bus 20
18%
Am ps
44%
Am ps
bus 15
A
1.0080 pu -87.41 Deg 0.295 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.181 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.405 MW 0.160 Mvar
sla ck
39%
MVA
39%
Am ps
46%
Am ps
56%
Am ps A
Substation
Feeder 2
2%
Am ps
bus 16
A
Am ps
bus 17
A
34%
Am ps
12%
0.833 MW 0 MW 0.329 Mvar 0 Mvar bus 29 0 MW 0 Mvar 0.9045 pu -91.84 Deg 0.508 MW 0.201 Mvar
Am ps
bus 28
A
7%
Am ps
39%
Am ps
35%
Am ps A
16%
Am ps
6%
Am ps
bus 27 0.9858 pu -90.66 Deg 0.280 MW 0.111 Mvar 0.8583 pu -92.56 Deg bus 30 0 MW 0 Mvar 1.072 MW 0.424 Mvar
bus 6
A
1%
Am ps
Feeder 1
A
bus 26
1%
Am ps
bus 8
A
bus 7
10%
Am p s
3%
8%
Am p s
5%
Am ps
5%
Am ps
1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar
24%
Am p s
bus 14
A
bus 19 bus 20
16%
Am p s
40%
Am p s
38%
MVA
Substation
Systems losses
bus 15
A A
13%
Am p s
43%
Am p s
50%
Am p s
59%
Am p s A
Figure 3.4 Distribution System With Distributed Generation (DG) At Unity Power Factor at year 2010
slack
Feeder 2
2%
Am p s
bus 16
A
bus 17
A
1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar
30%
Am p s
11%
Am ps
bus 28
A
7%
Am p s
35%
Am ps
32%
Am p s A
6%
Am ps
bus 30
bus 26
3.5 Distribution System With Distributed Generation (DG) At Unity Power Factor at year 2039
Feeder 1
0.9908 pu -90.83 Deg
A
bus 6
A
15%
Am ps
bus 8
A
bus 7
bus 6
A
2%
Am ps
Systems losses
Feeder 1
A
25%
Am p s
bus 8
A
bus 7
1 6%
Am p s
Location of DG
A
10%
Am p s
1%
Am ps
1%
Am ps
5%
Am ps
2%
Am ps
3%
5%
Am ps
MW LOSSES = 0.7670 MW
A
8%
Am ps
8%
Am ps
5%
Am p s
8%
Am ps
MW LOSSES = 1.0069 MW
A
13%
Am ps
51 %
Am ps
2.3583 MW
slack
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar
A
Systems losses
0.9896 pu -87.47 Deg 0.965 MW 0.424 Mvar
A
1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar
25%
Am p s
bus 19 bus 20
A
41%
Am ps
16%
Am p s
13%
Am p s
bus 15
A
6%
Am ps
M W O U TP U T = 7.0089 M W M V A R O U TP U T = 4.1452 M v ar
1.682 MW 0.424 Mvar
bus 14
22%
Am p s
bus 19 bus 20
28 %
Am ps
68%
MVA
64%
Am ps
75%
Am ps
79%
Amps
A
78%
Amps
bus 15
0.9515 pu -89.63 Deg 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar
Substation
Feeder 2
2%
Am ps
bus 16
A
Figure 3.5 Distribution System with Distributed Generation (DG) At Unity Power Factor at year 2039 For the figure shown in Figure 3.5, the systems condition is set to peak demand using the data in the year 2039 under a unity power factor configuration of DG. It is illustrated in the figure that by year 2039, with DG penetration in the system still it sustains the needed demand of the system with no transmission line exceed to its line capacity limit. In relation for the next model of the system, instead of unity power factor, the configuration of DG in the system is set to 95% power factor lagging (absorbing reactive power).
3.6 Distribution System With Distributed Generation (DG) At 95% Power Factor Lagging at year 2010
The Figure 3.6 shows the model of the system with the application of DG at 95% pf lagging (which means the DG is absorbing a reactive power from the system), as well as the system uses peak load demand data in the year 2010. With this condition of the DG, though it decreases the capacity profile of the substation but generally it worsen the results of the distribution losses and the voltage profile of the system compared to the first model in which the system does not have the DG and the second model when DG is set to a unity pf wherein it results to a better results. For the detailed results, the technical assessments of this case were found in Apendix B.
slack
25%
29%
Am p s
25 %
Am ps A
Am ps
81%
MVA
3%
Am p s
bus 16
bus 17
A
1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar
1 3%
Am p s
bus 17
30%
29 %
Am ps
2.243 MW
bus 24 1.306 MW 0.329 Mvar 0.439 Mvar
Am ps
54%
Am ps
11%
Am ps
bus 28
A
7%
Am p s
36%
Am p s
32%
Am ps A
19%
Am ps
bus 28
A
bus 29
12 %
Am ps
6%
Am p s
6 3%
Am p s
5 7%
Am p s A
bus 30
9%
Am ps
bus 26
bus 30
bus 26
Figure 3.6 Distribution System With Distributed Generation (DG) At 95% Power Factor Lagging at year 2010
3.7 Distribution System With Distributed Generation (DG) At 95% Power Factor Lagging at year 2039
It is shown in Figure 3.7 the condition of the distribution system when DG was set to 95% lagging power factor in the year 2039. In this condition the substation capacity exceeds to its maximum capacity, this happens because of the MVar that the DG absorbs in the system.
0.9887 pu -90.85 Deg
A
2%
bus 6
A
Am p s
Feeder 1
A
2%
Am p s
bus 8
A
bus 7
A
17%
Am p s
5%
Am ps
8%
Am p s
13%
Am ps
52%
Am p s
2.3583 MW
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar
bus 19 bus 20
A
81%
A s mp
29%
Am p s
22%
Am p s
bus 15
0.9207 pu -87.54 Deg 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar
Figure 3.7 Distribution System with Distributed Generation (DG) at 95% Power Factor Lagging at year 2039 In contrary from the three models, the next model of the system proposed a new installed power transformer and transmission lines which also operates in 30 years instead of putting up a DG in the system.
slack
56%
Am ps
65%
Am ps
59%
Am ps A
102%
MVA
3%
Am p s
bus 16
A
bus 17
A
2.243 MW
bus 24
A
0.439 Mvar
54%
Am ps
19%
Am ps
bus 28
A
12%
Am p s
63%
Am ps
57%
Am ps A
9%
Am p s
bus 30
bus 26
3.8 Distribution System With New Installed Power Transformer and Transmission Lines, year (2010)
0.9947 pu -90.66 Deg
A
bus 6
A
1%
Am p s
Feeder 1
A
Figure 3.9 shows the condition of the simulation in the year 2039 with the new installed power transformer and transmission lines. It is illustrated in the figure that by year 2039, still the proposed project accommodates the needed demand of the system. Base on the four cases of simulation of the distribution system, it comes up that the installation of new power transformer and transmission lines was the best option of the proposed projects considering the result of its technical assessment, but with regards to its economic analysis it will be discussed in the next section on what be the possible project that results the best economic calculation.
1%
Am p s
bus 8
A
bus 7
A
10%
Am ps
3%
Am ps
5%
Am p s
MW LOSSES = 0.4058 MW
A
bus 9
8%
Am p s
1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar
26%
Am ps
2 2%
Am p s
bus 18
A
bus 14
14 %
Am ps
bus 19 bus 20
17%
Am ps
2 2%
Am p s
45%
MVA
29%
Am p s A
3 3%
Am p s A
26%
Am ps A
29%
Am p s
3 3%
Am p s
26%
Am ps A
Figure 3.8 Distribution System with New Installed Power Transformer and Transmission Lines, year (2010) As shown in the Figure 3.8, with the new installed power transformer and transmission lines in the distribution system it gives the best results among the three models in terms of distribution losses, power quality and voltage profile improvements. Thus this proposed project leads the results in terms of technical analysis; it could be the best option for the issues and problems arises in the system. The summarized results of the technical assessment of this case were shown in the Apendix B.
3.9 Distribution System With New Installed Power Transformer and Transmission Lines, year (2039)
0.9922 pu -90.87 Deg
A
MW LOSSES = 1.3905 MW
A
Figure 3.9 Distribution System with New Installed Power Transformer and Transmission Lines, year (2039)
slack
A
45%
MVA
2%
Am ps
bus 16
A
bus 17
A
1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar
29%
Am p s
11%
Am p s
bus 28
A
6%
Am p s
34%
Am p s
31%
Am ps A
6%
Am ps
bus 30
IV.
bus 26
In this section, the calculation and understanding the concept of the economic parameters were being discussed to have an idea on how would these parameters be the basis in choosing a better project to sustain the power demand in the future. Each parameter is clearly given with appropriate equations and discussion to have a more understanding of the calculation in every parameter. In calculating the economic parameters, all annual payment and saving such as; annual cost of project, annual O and M, Depreciation cost, annual cost to generate power, annual energy sales and annual cost of energy savings were take back to its equivalent present cost. After calculating the total present cost of the project and present total benefits cost, getting the difference of the two would results to its Net present value of the project. This parameter will be the basis in choosing the best project in terms to its economic analysis. From the Table 4.1, it shows the results of its economic parameters of the different projects. Considering the total Net Present Value (NPV) or the Payback time of the project be the basis in choosing the possible project, it results that all projects were acceptable but with regards in choosing the best project base on the economic analysis calculation, it is the installation of new Distributed Generation Hydro Power Plant takes the shortest payback period and result a higher NPV value. In conclusion, in terms to its economic analysis it is the Hydro power plant DG project would be the possible solution for the issues and problems that the system encounter.
bus 6
A
2%
Am ps
Feeder 1
A
2%
Am ps
bus 8
A
bus 7
A
1 6%
Am p s
5%
Am ps
8%
Am ps
bus 9
13%
Am ps
0.235 MW 0.059 Mvar 0.9523 pu -91.89 Deg 1.682 MW 0.424 Mvar bus 15
A A A
2.3583 MW
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar
5 2%
Am p s
bus 14
22%
Am p s
bus 19 bus 20
2 9%
Am p s
41%
Am ps A
41%
Am ps
0.9207 pu -92.46 Deg bus 21 0.9260 pu -92.42 Deg bus 22 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.9223 pu -92.45 Deg bus 23 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar 0.8983 pu -93.35 Deg
82%
s lack
MVA A
53%
Am ps
10%
Am ps
62 %
Am ps A
50 %
Am ps A
82%
MVA
53%
Am ps
62 %
Am ps
6%
Am ps A
3%
Am ps
bus 16
A
14%
Am ps
bus 17
A
31 %
Am ps
2.243 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar
53%
Am ps
1.306 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29 0.796 MW 0.201 Mvar 0.8627 pu -93.77 Deg
18%
Am p s
bus 28
A
3 1%
Am p s A
12%
Am p s
31 %
Am ps
57 %
Am ps A
27%
Am p s
9%
Am p s
bus 30
DIESEL 35,000.00 30,000.00 65,000.00 9,500 90.00% 8,500 10% 30 3.00% = = 70.00% = = = 8.00 5.25 52,122,000.00 2.75% 1,787.50
COAL FIRED ----50,000.00 10,600 80.00% 8,500 10% 30 3.00% 3.70% 1,850.00 70.00% 7.50 4.75 52,122,000.00
HYDRO - ELECTRIC PHOTOVOLTAIC 45,000.00 15,000.00 60,000.00 10,000 85.00% 8,500 10% 30 3.00% 3.00% 1,800.00 70.00% 3.50 52,122,000.00 70.00% 7.50 52,122,000.00 225,000.00 5,000.00 230,000.00 14,200 60.00% 8,500 10% 30 2.00% 0.35% 805.00
WIND 50,000.00 25,000.00 75,000.00 13,100 65.00% 8,500 10% 30 2.00% 0.55% 412.50 70.00% 3.50 52,122,000.00
10,000 98.00% 10,000 10% 30 3.00% 15.00% 60.00% 9.00 7.50 52,560,000.00 231.55 1,217,026.80 670,475,577.09
Installation Cost (Php./KW) = Total Investment Cost Php. Per KW Plant Total Capacity (Kwatt) Overall efficiency (%) Plant Supply (Kwatt) Discount Rate (%) Depreciation (%) = = = = =
Projected Years of Operation (n) = Operation and Maintenance (%) Operation and Maintenane (Php./KW -yr) Load Factor (%) = Generation Cost (Php.) per KWHR (rate) Cost to Generate Power (Php./KWhr) Energy Sales (KWHR) a year
Average Active Power Loss (KW) saved per day = Total Energy Sales (KWhr) saved per year = Loan Amount or Project Cost (Investment) = OUTPUTS Annual Cost of Project = = = = = = -529498.2
-86.35
-529498.20 617,500,000.00
-86.35
-529498.20 530,000,000.00
-86.35
600,000,000.00
159.18
976,112.20 -529498.20 3,266,000,000.00
-86.35
982,500,000.00
65,503,935.80 16,981,250.00 160,080,791.29 1,965,118.07 18,525,000.00 273,640,500.00 2,579,585,588.20 358,090,803.87 -4,235,985.60 -39,932,273.93 416,976,000.00 = = = = = =
56,222,001.57 19,610,000.00 184,861,792.70 1,686,660.05 15,900,000.00 247,579,500.00 325,098,161.62 -3,971,236.50 -37,436,506.81 390,915,000.00
63,647,548.95 18,000,000.00 169,684,460.41 1,909,426.47 18,000,000.00 0.00 83,556,975.42 -1,853,243.70 -17,470,369.85 182,427,000.00 787,684,460.41 1,702,253,355.62 914,568,895.22 2.1610853599 3.73449 22.87719
346,454,824.79 11,431,000.00 107,759,059.27 6,929,096.50 65,320,000.00 0.00 0.00 364,814,921.29 7,320,841.50 69,012,946.65 390,915,000.00 3,439,079,059.27 3,754,135,215.51 315,056,156.24 1.0916106175 8.59755 11.08543
104,222,861.41 5,403,750.00 50,940,689.05 2,084,457.23 19,650,000.00 0.00 0.00 111,711,068.64 -1,853,243.70 -17,470,369.85 182,427,000.00 1,053,090,689.05 1,702,253,355.62 649,162,666.57 1.6164356720 5.67638 16.99234
71,123,545.19 10,668,531.78 100,571,336.56 2,133,706.36 20,114,267.31 394,200,000.00 3,716,089,682.89 478,125,783.32 10,953,241.20 103,255,267.93 473,040,000.00 4,507,250,863.85 4,562,562,887.39 55,312,023.54 1.0122717872 8.70849 12.35219
Operation and Maintenance Cost a year Total Present Cost of O and M (Php.) Annual Depreciation Cost Annual Cost to Generate Power Total Present Cost to Generate Power Total Annual Project Cost =
2,333,910,770.28 0.00
Total Annual Energy Sales saved per year (Php.) = Total Present Cost of Annual Energy Sales Saved = Total Annual Energy Sales =
TOTAL PRESENT COST OF PROJECT (Php.) PRESENT TOTAL BENEFITS COST (Php.) Net Present Value (NPV) > 0 (acceptable) Benefit Cost ratio (BCR) > 1 (acceptable) Payback Period (YEARS) Internal Rate of Return (%)
3,375,691,379.50 3,064,672,562.98 3,890,864,812.85 3,647,685,762.05 515,173,433.36 1.1526127171 5.13927 11.79575 583,013,199.07 1.1902367013 4.48895 12.22963
V.
There are some factors to be considered in the application of DG in distribution system. Such that, there are limits to be considered in the addition of distributed generations in the system, if it goes beyond its limit then it is important to modify and change the already designed distributed system equipment and protection, which could in a result facilitate the integration of new generation. This addition of the equipment could involve protection relays, switchgears, change of the voltage regulation system, revised grounding and transfer trips [2]. Base on the simulation of this paper as DG was placed in the distribution system, the Distributed generation (DG) made a significant impact on the voltage profile, power quality and power flow for both customers and electricity suppliers in the system. This results to a positive and negative impact on the system, depending on the configuration or characteristics of the DG and its location. Such projects that were proposed on this study results a major impact in the distribution system in terms to its technical and economical analysis. In line with the technical assessment of this study, it is concluded that the installation of new Power transformer and transmission lines proposed project provide the best results with respect to the reduction of distribution losses and voltage profile enhancement. Subsequently, the second project that gives a good result in terms of technical assessment is the installation of DG at unity power factor. It is important that the DG is placed in the optimal location to obtain a good result in the technical assessment; otherwise, it may worsen the result of the power quality of the distribution system if it were not placed in the right location. Therefore, the location and configuration of the DG is really important in this study .The summarized results for this study were illustrated in the Apendix B for the technical analysis. In the other hand, the economical assessment of the proposed projects in this paper is also evaluated in order to have a conclusion or recommendation to which project is best suited for the study. In this study, it is presented in the economic analysis that all projects were acceptable but the construction of Distributed Generation Hydro power plant obtains the best result in economic calculation when considering the NPV, Payback Time, IRR and BCR parameters. Through simulation of the distribution system with different proposed projects and calculation of its economical assessment, it is observed that there two different projects that gives a best results in terms of technical and economical assessment; these are the
installation of new power transformer and transmission lines and construction of DG Hydro power plant project, respectively. With these results, it is now in the hand of the owner or the decision makers to determine which project or technology is best suited to meet their specific energy needs.
REFERENCES: [1] Impact of Distributed Generation on Distribution Losses: V. H. Mndez(1)*, J. Rivier(1), J. I. de la Fuente(1), T. Gmez(1), J. Arceluz(2), J. Marn(2) Impact of Distributed Generation on Electrical Power Network: Umar Naseem Khan Power Quality Impacts of Distributed Generation: Guidelines, 1000405, Final Report, December 2000 Power Quality and Voltage Stability of Distribution System with Distributed Energy Sources, Vu Van Thong, Johan Driesen, Ronie Belmans, Department of Electrical Engg , Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Distributed Generation and Power Quality, Umar Naseem Khan IMPACTS OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION ON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM POWER QUALITY, T. VU VAN A. WOYTE J. SOENS J. DRIESEN R. BELMANS, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven (Belgium) Impact of Distributed Generation over Power Losses on Distribution System, Fracisco M. Gonzlez-Longatt (Author), Electric Engineering Department, Universidad Nacional Experimental Politcnica de la Fuerza Armada, Maracay, Venezuela, fglongatt@ieee.org Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology Applications; Prepared for: Maine Public Utilities Commission: Prepared by: Resource Dynamics Corporation; February 2001 Economic and Financial Aspects of Distributed Generation; by: Ari Rabl and Peter Fusaro R. Preston McAfee and J. Stanley Johnson, Introduction to Economic Analysis, Version 2.0, California Institute of Technology, July 24, 2006
[2] [3]
[4]
[5] [6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
APENDIX A: FIGURE A-1: HISTORICAL DATA OF PEAK DEMAND (KW) (2001 2008)
6000.00 5000.00 4000.00 3000.00 2000.00 1000.00 0.00 YEAR FEEDER 1 FEEDER 2 FEEDER 3 TOTAL DEMAND
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2573.3 2669.1 2765.0 2860.8 2956.7 3052.5 3148.4 3244.2 3270.3 3335.6 3422.9 3482.0 3539.2 3634.8 3730.3 3825.8 3823.4 3994.7 4136.8 4323.9 4350.0 4415.2 4502.6 4561.7 4618.9 4714.4 4810.0 4905.5 4903.1 5074.4 5216.5 4977.6 5163.0 5348.4 5533.8 5719.2 5904.6 6090.0 6275.4 6325.8 6452.1 6621.1 6735.4 6846.1 7030.9 7215.7 7400.4 7395.8 7727.1 8002.0 8363.9 8414.3 8540.6 8709.6 8823.8 8934.5 9119.3 9304.1 9488.9 9484.3 9815.6 10090. 727.05 754.10 781.16 808.21 835.27 862.32 889.38 916.43 923.85 942.29 966.95 983.63 1000.7 1027.7 1054.7 1081.6 1081.1 1129.4 1169.5 1222.3 1229.7 1248.2 1272.8 1289.5 1306.6 1333.6 1360.6 1387.6 1387.0 1435.3 1475.4
TOTAL DEMAND 8278.0 8586.3 8894.6 9202.9 9511.2 9819.5 10127. 10436. 10520. 10730. 11011. 11201. 11386. 11693. 12000. 12308. 12300. 12851. 13308. 13910. 13994. 14204. 14485. 14675. 14860. 15167. 15474. 15782. 15774. 16325. 16782.
35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 YEAR 2001 10,574,370 20,454,316 2,983,672 34,012,359 2002 11,708,586 22,648,264 3,303,704 37,660,554 2003 12,522,765 24,223,153 3,533,433 40,279,351 2004 6,859,626 13,268,778 1,935,517 22,063,921 2005 13,285,707 25,698,934 3,748,705 42,733,346 2006 13,364,541 25,851,426 3,770,949 42,986,916 2007 13,785,234 26,665,185 3,889,652 44,340,071 2008 14,065,764 27,207,823 3,968,807 45,242,394
70,000,000
60,000,000
ENERGY SALES (KWHR)
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
YEARS
FEEDER 1 FEEDER 2 FEEDER 3
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
14,551,526 14,891,566 15,231,606 15,571,642 15,911,685 16,251,722 16,591,762 16,931,803 17,356,955 17,549,559 17,636,2 81 18,141,082 18,650,646 18,973,330 19,396,208 19,588,811 19,675,533 20,180,334 20,689,898 21,012,582 21,435,460 21,628,063 21,714,786 22,219,586 22,729,150 23,051,834 23,474,712 23,667,315 23,754,038 24,258,839 24,768,402 28,147,446 28,805,194 29,462,944 30,120,690 30,778,439 31,436,188 32,093,934 32,751,683 33,574,069 33,946,629 34,114,3 76 35,090,829 36,076,491 36,700,667 37,518,653 37,891,213 38,058,960 39,035,412 40,021,075 40,645,251 41,463,237 41,835,797 42,003,544 42,979,996 43,965,659 44,589,835 45,407,821 45,780,380 45,948,128 46,924,580 46,924,580 4,105,869 4,201,814 4,297,761 4,393,706 4,489,652 4,585,598 4,681,544 4,777,490 4,897,452 4,951,797 4,976,266 5,118,702 5,262,481 5,353,529 5,472,849 5,527,194 5,551,664 5,694,099 5,837,878 5,928,927 6,048,246 6,102,592 6,127,061 6,269,497 6,413,275 6,504,324 6,623,644 6,677,989 6,702,459 6,844,894 6,988,673
TOTAL DEMAND 46,804,841 47,898,574 48,992,311 50,086,038 51,179,776 52,273,508 53,367,240 54,460,976 55,828,476 56,447,985 56,726,9 23 58,350,613 59,989,618 61,027,526 62,387,710 63,007,218 63,286,157 64,909,845 66,548,851 67,586,760 68,946,943 69,566,452 69,845,391 71,469,079 73,108,084 74,145,993 75,506,177 76,125,684 76,404,625 78,028,313 78,681,655
FEEDER MAPE MAD MSD FEEDER 1 1.55 2.13E+05 5.75E+10 FEEDER 2 1.55 4.12E+05 2.15E+11 FEEDER 3 2 60101 4.58E+09
APENDIX B: RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION FOR THE DIFFERENT CASES IN THE SYSTEM (TABLES AND GRAPHS): GRAPH AND TABLE B-1: CAPACITY PROFILE (%)
100
CAPACITY IN (%)
80
WITHOUT PROJECT
60
WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING)
40
WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
20
CASES / SCENARIO WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
CAPACITY PROFILE (%) 2010 93.7 67.8 38.0 45.4 2011 96.5 68.0 38.0 46.8 2012 99.4 68.2 38.3 48.1 2013 102.3 68.6 38.7 49.5 2014 105.2 69.1 39.4 50.9 2015 108.1 69.8 40.2 53.3
GRAPH AND TABLE B-2: TECHNICAL LOSS (KW) AND THE DIFFERENCE IN TECHNICAL LOSS (KW) (BASECASE SET AS REFERENCE)
WITHOUT PROJECT
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 2011 2012 YEAR 2013 2014 2015
WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING)
CASES / SCENARIO WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
TECHNICAL LOSS (KW) 2010 609.3 767.0 522.9 405.8 2011 646.2 775.5 530.3 430.4 2012 684.6 785.2 540.2 455.5 2013 723.9 796.1 550.4 483.5 2014 764.7 808.2 561.9 511.2 2015 806.8 821.6 574.7 559.8
CASES / SCENARIO WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
WITHOUT PROJECT
WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF)
CASES / SCENARIO WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
REACTIVE POWER LOSS (KVAR) 2010 482.2 567.3 370.5 308.7 2011 511.4 572.5 375.3 327.4 2012 541.4 578.5 380.9 346.2 2013 573.7 586.7 388.5 368.1 2014 606.4 595.1 396.4 389.3 2015 640.2 604.7 405.4 426.5
0.86 0.85
WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF)
0.84 0.83 0.82 2010 2011 2012 YEAR 2013 2014 2015
WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
CASES / SCENARIO WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF) WITH PROJECTS (WITH NEW POWER TRANSFORMER AND PARALLEL TRANSMISSION LINES)
VOLTAGE PROFILE 2010 0.875468 0.868242 0.870859 0.880438 2011 0.871756 0.86397 0.866605 0.876908 2012 0.868057 0.859678 0.86233 0.873408 2013 0.86439 0.855364 0.858033 0.869866 2014 0.860735 0.851029 0.853713 0.866382 2015 0.8571 0.846674 0.849373 0.862791
PROPOSED PROJECTS
FOR THE LOW P.U. VOLTAGE AT BUS 30, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO INSTALL A CAPACITOR BANK NEAR BUS 30 TO IMPROVE THE VOLTAGE PROFILE