You are on page 1of 14

Impact of Embedded or Distributed Generation in the Distribution System

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)

This is a simple geometric series, and the result is readily summed to

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

the project should be rejected

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

0.9932 pu -90.85 Deg


A

bus 6
A

0.9937 pu -90.85 Deg


2%
A m ps

1%
A m ps

Feeder 1
A

0.9962 pu -90.85 Deg


16 %
A m ps

bus 10 0.9933 pu -90.85 Deg


A

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar

1%
A m ps

bus 8
A

bus 7
A

0.9772 pu bus 11 -90.81 Deg


5%
A m ps

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.9973 pu -90.85 Deg


A

11 %
A m ps

bus 12 0.9790 pu -90.82 Deg bus 13


A

3%
A m ps

5%
A m ps

bus 9
8%
A m ps

0.9772 pu -90.81 Deg 0.0000 MW 0.0000 Mvar

0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

MVAR LOSSES = 0.4822 Mvar

0.9914 pu -90.84 Deg

0.135 MW 0.059 Mvar

0.9054 pu -91.87 Deg


A

1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar

2 7%
Am p s

M W O U TPU T = 8.5863 MW M V A R O U TPU T = 3.7432 M v ar


0.965 MW 0.424 Mvar

0.9460 pu -91.54 Deg


A

bus 14
14 %
A m ps

0.9081 pu bus 18 -91.88 Deg


A A

bus 19 bus 20
1 8%
Am p s

44 %
A m ps

bus 15
A A

94%
M VA

0.9496 pu -91.49 Deg


A

0.9226 pu -91.89 Deg


A

0.9144 pu -91.88 Deg bus 21


6%
A m ps

59 %
A m ps

69 %
A m ps

54 %
A m ps A

0.9972 pu -90.86 Deg


A

0.9177 pu -91.88 Deg bus 22


4%
A m ps

0.265 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.163 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.364 MW 0.160 Mvar

0.9069 pu -91.87 Deg

s lack
1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg

Substation

Feeder 2

2%
Am p s

bus 16
A

0.9154 pu -91.88 Deg bus 23


9%
A m ps

0.9973 pu -90.85 Deg Main Feeder

0.9486 pu -91.49 Deg

0.072 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

0.9043 pu -92.18 Deg


15 %
A m ps

1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar

III.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

30 %

0.9274 pu -91.79 Deg


A

System's Total Load = 7.8543 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 8.58633 MW

A m ps

0.749 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29

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.

0.9884 pu -90.97 Deg bus 25


A

0.9308 pu -91.74 Deg

1 1%
Am p s

bus 28
A

7%
Am p s

0.457 MW 0.201 Mvar

35 %
A m ps

31 %
A m ps A

0.9144 pu -91.98 Deg


14 %
A m ps

0.9973 pu -90.85 Deg Feeder 3

6%
A m ps

0.9869 pu -90.96 Deg

bus 27 0.8755 pu -92.59 Deg

bus 30

bus 26

0.252 MW 0.111 Mvar

0.964 MW 0.424 Mvar

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

0.9908 pu -91.23 Deg


4% Am ps

2% A m ps

Feeder 1
A

0.9945 pu -91.21 Deg


25 ps % Am

bus 10 0.9902 pu -91.24 Deg


A

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar

2% A m ps

bus 8
A

bus 7
A

0.9653 pu bus 11 -91.42 Deg


8% A m ps

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.9963 pu -91.19 Deg


A

16 ps % Am

bus 12 0.9679 pu -91.40 Deg bus 13


A

5% Am p s

8% A m ps

MW LOSSES = 2.3061 MW
A

bus 9
13% Amp s

0.9653 pu -91.42 Deg 0.0000 MW 0.0000 Mvar

0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

MVAR LOSSES = 1.8104 Mvar

0.9873 pu -91.26 Deg

0.235 MW 0.059 Mvar

0.8182 pu -94.95 Deg


A

58 ps % Am

2.3583 MW
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar

M W O UTP UT = 16.7825 MW M V A R O UTP UT = 5.2368 Mv ar


1.682 MW 0.424 Mvar

0.9003 pu -93.34 Deg


A

bus 14
2 Am p s 3%

0.8238 pu bus 18 -94.88 Deg


A

bus 19 bus 20
32 ps % Am

91%
Amps

bus 15

0.9059 pu -93.20 Deg


A

0.8531 pu -94.58 Deg


A

0.8386 pu -94.71 Deg bus 21


1 Am p s 1%

0.8217 pu -94.90 Deg 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar

System's Total Load = 14.4989 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 16.78252 MW

Figure 3.2 Distribution System Without Distributed Generation (DG) at year 2039

slack

116%
Amps

135%
Amps

110%
Amps
A

0.8445 pu -94.65 Deg bus 22


7% Am p s

176%
MVA

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg Substation 0.9963 pu -91.19 Deg Main Feeder

0.9961 pu -91.20 Deg Feeder 2

3% Am p s

bus 16
A

0.8404 pu -94.69 Deg bus 23


1 Am p s 5%

0.9042 pu -93.21 Deg

0.125 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

0.8139 pu -95.77 Deg


34% Amp s

2.243 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar

54% Amp s

0.8731 pu -93.79 Deg


A

1.306 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29

0.9807 pu -91.49 Deg bus 25


A

0.8788 pu -93.64 Deg

19% Amp s

bus 28
A

12% Amp s

0.796 MW 0.201 Mvar

63% Amp s

5 Am p s 8%
A

0.8508 pu -94.35 Deg


27% Amp s

0.9962 pu -91.20 Deg Feeder 3

9% Am ps

0.9784 pu -91.50 Deg

bus 27 0.7752 pu -96.26 Deg

bus 30

bus 26

0.439 MW 0.111 Mvar

1.681 MW 0.424 Mvar

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

0.9931 pu -90.53 Deg


1%

0 MW 0 Mvar 0.0570 MW 0.0225 Mvar

0.9936 pu -90.53 Deg


2%
Am ps

Am ps

Location of DG at bus 17
0.9961 pu -90.53 Deg
A

bus 10 0.9932 pu -90.53 Deg


A

1%
Am ps

bus 7 bus 8
A

17%
Am ps

0.9767 pubus 11 -90.53 Deg


5%
Am ps

0.0570 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.2475 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.9972 pu -90.53 Deg

0 MW 0 Mvar

11%
Am ps

bus 12 0.9784 pu -90.53 Deg bus 9 bus 13


A

3%
Am ps

5%
Am ps

0.2475 MW 0.0980 Mvar 0.9767 pu 0 MW -90.53 Deg 0.0000 Mvar

MW LOSSES = 0.5480 MW
A

9%

MVAR LOSSES = 0.3862 Mvar

Am ps

0 MW 0 Mvar

0.9912 pu -90.53 Deg

8.5000 MW 0.0000 Mvar 1.0066 pu -87.41 Deg


A

0.150 MW 0.059 Mvar

26%
Am ps

MW OUTPUT = 0.7098 MW MVAR OUTPUT = 3.8081 Mvar


1.073 MW 0.424 Mvar

1.0042 pu -88.81 Deg


A

bus 14
14%
Am ps

1.0092 pu bus 18 -87.41 Deg


A A

bus 19 bus 20
18%
Am ps

1.2402 MW 0.4902 Mvar 0.8268 MW 0.3268 Mvar

44%
Am ps

bus 15
A

1.0077 pu -88.76 Deg


A

1.0235 pu -87.41 Deg


A

1.0154 pu -87.41 Deg bus 21


6%
Am ps

1.0080 pu -87.41 Deg 0.295 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.181 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.405 MW 0.160 Mvar

Syst em's T otal Load = 8.6650 MW

Figure 3.3 Choosing the Optimal Location of Distributed Generation (DG)


BUS NO. 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 14 17 18 23 24 25 26 27 30 MW LOSS 0.7471 0.7459 0.7465 0.8230 1.8110 2.1305 2.0988 0.5515 0.5480 0.7345 1.3082 1.0847 0.7884 1.0724 1.1868 2.3604 MVAR LOSS 0.5265 0.5254 0.5260 0.5566 0.9486 1.0755 1.0630 0.3875 0.3862 0.4560 0.6744 0.7729 0.5562 0.6655 0.8436 1.6922

Table 3.1 Results of the simulation in choosing the location of DG

sla ck

39%
MVA

39%
Am ps

46%
Am ps

56%
Am ps A

0.9973 pu -90.52 Deg


A

1.0187 pu -87.41 Deg bus 22


4%
Am ps

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg

Substation

Feeder 2

2%
Am ps

bus 16
A

1.0164 pu -87.41 Deg bus 23


9%

0 MW 0 Mvar 0.9973 pu -90.53 Deg Main Feeder 0 MW 0 Mvar


A

Am ps

1.0067 pu -88.76 Deg 0 MW 0 MW 0 Mvar0 Mvar

0.080 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

1.0058 pu -87.66 Deg


14%
Am ps

bus 24 0.9189 pu -91.62 Deg


A

1.112 MW 0.439 Mvar

34%
Am ps

12%

0.9873 pu -90.66 Deg bus 25


A

0.9227 pu -91.56 Deg

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%

0.9972 pu -90.53 Deg Feeder 3 0 MW 0 Mvar

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

0.9935 pu -90.49 Deg


A

bus 6
A

0.9939 pu -90.49 Deg


2%
Am p s

1%
Am ps

Feeder 1
A

bus 26

0.9962 pu -90.49 Deg


15%
Am p s

bus 10 0.9936 pu -90.49 Deg


A

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar

1%
Am ps

bus 8
A

bus 7

0.9973 pu -90.49 Deg


A Am p s

10%
Am p s

3%

0.9801 pu -90.45 Deg bus 9

MW LOSSES = 0.5229 MW MVAR LOSSES = 0.3705 Mvar

8%
Am p s

0.9918 pu -90.48 Deg

8.5000 MW 0.0000 Mvar

Location of DG, at unity power factor


A

0.9785 pu bus 11 -90.45 Deg bus 12 bus 13

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

5%
Am ps

5%
Am ps

0.9785 pu -90.45 Deg

0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.135 MW 0.059 Mvar

1.0128 pu -87.16 Deg


A

1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar

24%
Am p s

MW OUTPUT = -0.1255 MW MVAR OUTPUT = 3.7931 Mvar


0.965 MW 0.424 Mvar

1.0076 pu -88.64 Deg

bus 14
A

1.0151 pu bus 18 -87.16 Deg


A A

bus 19 bus 20
16%
Am p s

40%
Am p s

38%
MVA

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg

Substation

Systems losses
bus 15
A A

13%
Am p s

1.0108 pu -88.60 Deg


A

1.0283 pu -87.19 Deg


A

1.0209 pu -87.17 Deg bus 21


6%
Am p s

43%
Am p s

50%
Am p s

59%
Am p s A

0.9973 pu -90.49 Deg

1.0239 pu -87.18 Deg bus 22


3%
Am p s

0.265 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.163 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.364 MW 0.160 Mvar

1.0141 pu -87.16 Deg

System's Total Load = 7.8543 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 8.37449 MW

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

1.0218 pu -87.17 Deg bus 23


8%
Am p s

0.9973 pu -90.49 Deg Main Feeder

1.0099 pu -88.60 Deg

0.072 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

1.0116 pu -87.40 Deg


14%
Am p s

1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar

30%
Am p s

0.9259 pu -91.33 Deg


A

0.749 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29

0.9882 pu -90.59 Deg bus 25


A

0.9293 pu -91.29 Deg

11%
Am ps

bus 28
A

7%
Am p s

0.457 MW 0.201 Mvar

35%
Am ps

32%
Am p s A

0.9127 pu -91.50 Deg


15%
Am p s

0.9972 pu -90.49 Deg Feeder 3

6%
Am ps

0.9868 pu -90.59 Deg

bus 27 0.8709 pu -92.04 Deg

bus 30

bus 26

0.252 MW 0.111 Mvar

0.964 MW 0.424 Mvar

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

0.9918 pu -90.50 Deg


2%
Am p s

0.9940 pu -90.50 Deg


A

15%
Am ps

bus 8
A

bus 7

bus 6
A

0.9916 pu -90.83 Deg


4%
Am p s

2%
Am ps

Systems losses
Feeder 1
A

0.9953 pu -90.80 Deg

25%
Am p s

bus 8
A

bus 7

0.9970 pu -90.79 Deg

1 6%
Am p s

Location of DG
A

bus 10 0.9910 pu -90.83 Deg

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar

0.9951 pu -90.50 Deg


A Am ps

10%
Am p s

Location of DG, at 95% power factor lagging


A

0.9913 pu -90.50 Deg

1%
Am ps

bus 10 0.9914 pu -90.50 Deg

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar

1%
Am ps

0.9763 pu bus 11 -90.46 Deg bus 12 bus 13

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar

5%
Am ps

0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

2%
Am ps

0.9660 pu bus 11 -91.02 Deg bus 12 bus 13

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

3%

0.9779 pu -90.46 Deg bus 9

5%
Am ps

MW LOSSES = 0.7670 MW
A

0.9763 pu -90.46 Deg 8.5000 MW -2.7900 Mvar

0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

8%
Am ps

8%

MVAR LOSSES = 0.5673 Mvar

Am ps

0.9896 pu -90.49 Deg

5%
Am p s

0.9686 pu -91.00 Deg bus 9

8%
Am ps

MW LOSSES = 1.0069 MW
A

0.9660 pu -91.02 Deg 8.5000 MW 0.0000 Mvar

0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

13%

MVAR LOSSES = 0.7192 Mvar

Am ps

0.9880 pu -90.86 Deg

MW OUTPUT = 0.1192 MW MVAR OUTPUT = 6.7807 Mvar


0.9485 pu -89.67 Deg
A

0.235 MW 0.059 Mvar

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

0.135 MW 0.059 Mvar 0.9866 pu bus 18 -85.10 Deg


A

0.9842 pu -85.10 Deg


A

1.1328 MW
0.4902 Mvar 0.7438 MW 0.3268 Mvar

25%
Am p s

bus 14 1.0001 pu -85.13 Deg

bus 19 bus 20
A

41%
Am ps

16%
Am p s

13%
Am p s

bus 15
A

0.9929 pu -87.43 Deg

0.9926 pu -85.11 Deg bus 21


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

0.9746 pu -90.25 Deg


A

bus 14
22%
Am p s

0.9533 pu bus 18 -89.62 Deg


A

bus 19 bus 20
28 %
Am ps

68%
MVA

64%
Am ps

75%
Am ps

79%
Amps
A

78%
Amps

0.9951 pu -90.50 Deg


A

0.9956 pu -85.12 Deg bus 22


4%
Am ps

0.265 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.163 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.364 MW 0.160 Mvar

0.9855 pu -85.10 Deg

bus 15

0.9798 pu -90.13 Deg


A

0.9787 pu -89.39 Deg


A

0.9660 pu -89.48 Deg bus 21


1 0%
Am p s

0.9515 pu -89.63 Deg 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg

Substation

Feeder 2

2%
Am ps

bus 16
A

0.9935 pu -85.12 Deg bus 23


8%
Am ps

System's Total Load = 14.4989 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 15.50891 MW

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

0.9711 pu -89.45 Deg bus 22


6%
Am p s

81%
MVA

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg Substation 0.9970 pu -90.79 Deg Main Feeder

0.9970 pu -90.79 Deg Feeder 2

Does not exceed to its limit


A

0.9951 pu -90.50 Deg Main Feeder

0.9919 pu -87.43 Deg

3%
Am p s

bus 16

0.9676 pu -89.47 Deg bus 23


A

0.072 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

0.9829 pu -85.35 Deg


14%
Am ps

1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar

1 3%
Am p s

0.9783 pu -90.14 Deg

0.125 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17

0.9448 pu -90.29 Deg


A

30%

0.9235 pu -91.34 Deg


A

29 %
Am ps

2.243 MW
bus 24 1.306 MW 0.329 Mvar 0.439 Mvar

System's Total Load = 7.8543 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 8.61920 MW

Am ps

0.749 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29

54%
Am ps

0.8739 pu -93.38 Deg


A

0.9860 pu -90.60 Deg bus 25


A

0.9269 pu -91.30 Deg

11%
Am ps

bus 28
A

7%
Am p s

0.457 MW 0.201 Mvar

36%
Am p s

32%
Am ps A

0.9814 pu -91.08 Deg bus 25


A

0.8796 pu -93.23 Deg

19%
Am ps

0.9103 pu -91.52 Deg


15%
Am ps

bus 28
A

bus 29

12 %
Am ps

0.796 MW 0.201 Mvar

0.9951 pu -90.50 Deg Feeder 3

6%
Am p s

6 3%
Am p s

5 7%
Am p s A

0.8517 pu -93.94 Deg


27 %
Am ps

0.9846 pu -90.60 Deg

bus 27 0.8682 pu -92.06 Deg

bus 30

0.9969 pu -90.79 Deg Feeder 3

9%
Am ps

0.9791 pu -91.10 Deg

bus 27 0.7764 pu -95.86 Deg

bus 26
bus 30

0.252 MW 0.111 Mvar

0.964 MW 0.424 Mvar

bus 26

0.439 MW 0.111 Mvar

1.681 MW 0.424 Mvar

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

0.9894 pu -90.84 Deg


4%
Am p s

Am p s

Feeder 1
A

0.9931 pu -90.81 Deg


25%
Am ps

bus 10 0.9888 pu -90.85 Deg


A

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar

2%
Am p s

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

bus 8
A

bus 7
A

0.9637 pu bus 11 -91.03 Deg


8%
Am p s

MW LOSSES = 1.2813 MW MVAR LOSSES = 0.9400 Mvar

Overloaded Power Transformer


0.9949 pu -90.80 Deg
A

17%
Am p s

bus 12 0.9664 pu -91.01 Deg bus 13


A

5%
Am ps

8%
Am p s

bus 9 8.5000 MW -2.7900 Mvar

0.9637 pu -91.03 Deg

0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

13%
Am ps

0.9858 pu -90.87 Deg

0.235 MW 0.059 Mvar 0.9226 pu bus 18 -87.52 Deg

0.9176 pu -87.58 Deg


A

52%
Am p s

2.3583 MW
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar

MW OUTPUT = 7.2711 MW MVAR OUTPUT = 7.1451 Mvar


1.682 MW 0.424 Mvar

0.9558 pu -89.08 Deg bus 14


A

bus 19 bus 20
A

81%
A s mp

29%
Am p s

22%
Am p s

bus 15

0.9611 pu -88.95 Deg


A

0.9488 pu -87.28 Deg


A

0.9357 pu -87.38 Deg bus 21


10%
Am ps

0.9207 pu -87.54 Deg 0.463 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.284 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.635 MW 0.160 Mvar

System's Total Load = 14.4989 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 15.77107 MW

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

0.9410 pu -87.34 Deg bus 22


6%
Am ps

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg Substation 0.9949 pu -90.80 Deg Main Feeder

0.9948 pu -90.80 Deg Feeder 2

3%
Am p s

bus 16
A

0.9373 pu -87.37 Deg bus 23


14%
Am ps

0.9595 pu -88.96 Deg

0.125 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

0.9138 pu -88.24 Deg


30%
Am p s

2.243 MW

bus 24
A

0.439 Mvar

54%
Am ps

0.8718 pu -93.40 Deg


A

1.306 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29

0.9793 pu -91.10 Deg bus 25


A

0.8774 pu -93.26 Deg

19%
Am ps

bus 28
A

12%
Am p s

0.796 MW 0.201 Mvar

63%
Am ps

57%
Am ps A

0.8495 pu -93.97 Deg


27%
Am p s

0.9948 pu -90.80 Deg Feeder 3

9%
Am p s

0.9770 pu -91.11 Deg

bus 27 0.7743 pu -95.90 Deg

bus 30

bus 26

0.439 MW 0.111 Mvar

1.681 MW 0.424 Mvar

3.8 Distribution System With New Installed Power Transformer and Transmission Lines, year (2010)
0.9947 pu -90.66 Deg
A

bus 6
A

0.9952 pu -90.66 Deg


2%
Am ps

1%
Am p s

Feeder 1
A

0.9976 pu -90.67 Deg


1 6%
Am p s

bus 10 0.9948 pu -90.66 Deg


A

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar

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

0.9792 pu bus 11 -90.63 Deg


5%
Am p s

0.0513 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.9987 pu -90.67 Deg


A

10%
Am ps

bus 12 0.9809 pu -90.63 Deg bus 13


A

3%
Am ps

5%
Am p s

MW LOSSES = 0.4058 MW
A

bus 9
8%
Am p s

0.9792 pu -90.63 Deg 0.0000 MW 0.0000 Mvar

0.2227 MW 0.0980 Mvar

MVAR LOSSES = 0.3087 Mvar

0.9929 pu -90.66 Deg

0.135 MW 0.059 Mvar

MW OUTPUT = 8.3254 MW MVAR OUTPUT = 3.6294 Mvar


A

0.9721 pu -91.01 Deg 0.965 MW 0.424 Mvar bus 15


A A A

0.9554 pu -91.13 Deg


A

0.9528 pu -91.13 Deg


A

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

0.9755 pu -90.97 Deg


A

0.9624 pu -91.14 Deg


A

0.9545 pu -91.13 Deg bus 21


6%
Am p s

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

0.9577 pu -91.14 Deg bus 22


4%
Am p s

0.265 MW 0.116 Mvar 0.163 MW 0.071 Mvar 0.364 MW 0.160 Mvar

0.9542 pu -91.13 Deg

System's Total Load = 7.8543 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 8.32539 MW

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

MVAR LOSSES = 1.0574 Mvar

M W O U TPU T = 15.8758 M W M V A R O U TPU T = 4.4876 M v ar


A

System's Total Load = 14.4989 MW SYSTEM'S MW GENERATED = 15.87582 MW

Figure 3.9 Distribution System with New Installed Power Transformer and Transmission Lines, year (2039)

slack
A

45%
MVA

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg

0.9987 pu -90.67 Deg Feeder 2

2%
Am ps

bus 16
A

0.9554 pu -91.13 Deg bus 23


8%
Am p s

Substation 0.9987 pu -90.67 Deg Main Feeder

0.9745 pu -90.97 Deg

0.072 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

0.9446 pu -91.40 Deg


15%
Am p s

1.042 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar

29%
Am p s

0.9309 pu -91.56 Deg


A

0.749 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29

0.9900 pu -90.78 Deg bus 25


A

0.9342 pu -91.52 Deg

11%
Am p s

bus 28
A

6%
Am p s

0.457 MW 0.201 Mvar

34%
Am p s

31%
Am ps A

0.9182 pu -91.74 Deg


14%
Am p s

0.9987 pu -90.67 Deg Feeder 3

6%
Am ps

0.9886 pu -90.77 Deg

bus 27 0.8804 pu -92.32 Deg

bus 30

IV.

bus 26

0.252 MW 0.111 Mvar

0.964 MW 0.424 Mvar

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTED TECHNOLOGIES

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

0.9929 pu -90.87 Deg


4%
Am p s

2%
Am ps

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar

Feeder 1
A

0.9966 pu -90.84 Deg


25 %
Am ps

bus 10 0.9923 pu -90.87 Deg


A

2%
Am ps

bus 8
A

bus 7
A

0.9674 pu bus 11 -91.05 Deg


8%
Am ps

0.0894 MW 0.0225 Mvar 0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.9984 pu -90.83 Deg


A

1 6%
Am p s

bus 12 0.9701 pu -91.03 Deg bus 13


A

5%
Am ps

8%
Am ps

bus 9
13%
Am ps

0.9674 pu -91.05 Deg 0.0000 MW 0.0000 Mvar

0.3880 MW 0.0980 Mvar

0.9894 pu -90.89 Deg

0.235 MW 0.059 Mvar 0.9523 pu -91.89 Deg 1.682 MW 0.424 Mvar bus 15
A A A

0.9158 pu -92.54 Deg


A

2.3583 MW
0.4902 Mvar 1.2963 MW 0.3268 Mvar

5 2%
Am p s

bus 14
22%
Am p s

0.9208 pu bus 18 -92.48 Deg


A A

bus 19 bus 20
2 9%
Am p s

41%
Am ps A

0.9577 pu -91.77 Deg


A

0.9339 pu -92.36 Deg


50 %
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

0.9190 pu -92.50 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

0.9983 pu -90.83 Deg Feeder 2

3%
Am ps

bus 16
A

1.0000 pu -90.50 Deg Substation 0.9984 pu -90.83 Deg Main Feeder

14%
Am ps

0.9560 pu -91.78 Deg

0.125 MW 0.032 Mvar

bus 17
A

31 %
Am ps

2.243 MW
bus 24 0.439 Mvar

53%
Am ps

0.8847 pu -93.22 Deg


A

1.306 MW 0.329 Mvar bus 29 0.796 MW 0.201 Mvar 0.8627 pu -93.77 Deg

0.8903 pu -93.08 Deg


A

18%
Am p s

bus 28
A

3 1%
Am p s A

0.9907 pu -90.97 Deg bus 25


A

12%
Am p s

31 %
Am ps

57 %
Am ps A

0.9983 pu -90.83 Deg Feeder 3

27%
Am p s

9%
Am p s

0.9884 pu -90.99 Deg

bus 27 0.7885 pu -95.62 Deg

bus 30

0.439 MW 0.111 Mvar bus 26

1.681 MW 0.424 Mvar

INPUTS Packaged Cost (Php./KW) = =

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

POWER X-FORMER AND TRANSMISSION LINES

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 =

Total Present Cost of Annual Depreciation 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

Table 4.1 Tabulated Result of the Economic Calculation of Different Projects

Net present Value (NPV) Highest


1,000,000,000.00 900,000,000.00 800,000,000.00 700,000,000.00 600,000,000.00 500,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 300,000,000.00 200,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 0.00

Payback Period (Years)


10.00000 9.00000 8.00000 7.00000 6.00000 5.00000 4.00000 3.00000 2.00000 1.00000 0.00000

NPV Value (Hydro)

Shortest Payback Time (hydro)

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Highest


2.5000000000 2.0000000000 1.5000000000 1.0000000000 0.5000000000 0.0000000000

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (%) the Hydro obtain


25.00000 20.00000 15.00000 10.00000 5.00000 0.00000

Benefit Cost Ratio (Hydro)

highest Inter Rate of Return (%)

V.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

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)

HISTORICAL PEAK DEMAND (KW) (2001 - 2008)


9000.00 8000.00 7000.00

PEAK DEMAND (KW)

6000.00 5000.00 4000.00 3000.00 2000.00 1000.00 0.00 YEAR FEEDER 1 FEEDER 2 FEEDER 3 TOTAL DEMAND

2001 1677.45 3244.74 473.31 5395.49

2002 1924.73 3723.06 543.08 6190.87

2003 2113.74 4088.68 596.42 6798.84

2004 2392.67 4628.21 675.12 7696.00

2005 2303.13 4455.02 649.85 7408.00

2006 2368.73 4581.91 668.36 7619.00

2007 2456.40 4751.50 693.10 7901.00

2008 2515.79 4866.36 709.86 8092.00

FIGURE A-2: FORECASTED DATA OF PEAK DEMAND (KW) (2009 2039)

FORECASTED PEAK DEMAND (KW) (2009 - 2039)


18000.00 16000.00 14000.00 12000.00
PEAK DEMAND (KW)

10000.00 8000.00 6000.00 4000.00 2000.00 0.00 YEAR


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 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.

FEEDER FEEDER 1 FEEDER 2 FEEDER 3

MAPE 1.94 1.9 1.939

MAD MSD 46.57 4064.31 90.1 152.07 13.135 323.032

FIGURE A-3: HISTORICAL DATA OF ENERGY SALES (KWHR) (2001 2008)

HISTORICAL ENERGY SALES (KWHR) (2001 - 2008)


50,000,000 45,000,000 40,000,000
ENERGY SALES (KWHR)

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

FEEDER 1 FEEDER 2 FEEDER 3 TOTAL DEMAND

FIGURE A-4: FORECASTED DATA OF ENERGY SALES (KWHR) (2009 2039)


FORECASTED ENERGY SALES (KWHR) FOR 30 YEARS (2009 - 2039)
80,000,000

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 (%)

CAPACITY PROFILE (%)


120

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

0 2010 2011 2012 YEAR 2013 2014 2015

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)

TECHNICAL LOSS (KW)


900 800 700

ACTIVE POWER LOSS (KW)

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)

DIFFERENCE IN TECHNICAL LOSS (KW) (BASECASE SET AS REFERNCE)

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-157.7 86.4 203.5

-129.3 115.9 215.8

-100.6 144.4 229.1

-72.2 173.5 240.4

-43.5 202.8 253.5

-14.8 232.1 247.0

AVERAGE -86.4 159.2 231.6

GRAPH AND TABLE B-3: REACTIVE POWER LOSS (KVAR)

REACTIVE POWER LOSS (KVAR)


700 600
REACTIVE POWER LOSS (KVAR)

500 400 300

WITHOUT PROJECT

WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT 95% PF LAGGING) WITH PROJECTS (WITH DG AT UNITY PF)

200 100 0 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)

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

GRAPH AND TABLE B-4: VOLTAGE PROFILE (%)

VOLTAGE PROFILE (P.U. VOLTAGE)


0.89 0.88 0.87
P.U. VOLTAGE
WITHOUT PROJECT

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

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION:


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) ANALYSIS & EVALUATION
WITHOUT PROJECT IN THE SIMULATION THE SUSBSTATION WAS OVERLOADED W/ DG AT 95% PF LAGGING IT RESULTS TO AN INCREASE OF ACTIVE LOSS (KW) IN THE SYSTEM W/ DG AT UNITY PF IT RESULTS TO A MUCH BETTER RESULT IN TERMS OF ACTIVE LOSS IN THE SYSTEM COMPARED TO DG AT 95% PF LAGGING THE TECHNICAL RESULTS OF THIS PROJECT RESULTS A BETTER OUTPUT COMPARED TO THE OTHER PROPOSED PROJECTS

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

You might also like