Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Miroslav M. BegovicI, Insu KimII, Damir NovoselIII, Julio Romero AgueroIV, Ajeet RohatgiV
I, II, V III, IV
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA Quanta Technologies, Raleigh, NC
I II III
mb50@mail.gatech.edu iskim@gatech.edu DNovosel@Quanta-Technology.com
IV V
julio@quanta-technology.com ajeet.rohatgi@ece.gatech.edu
1978
While those decisions are not equivalent to promotion Silicon PV technology is benefiting from improved
of renewable, they will create energy shortages that will cell efficiencies and lower costs consistent with the goal
partly be possible to balance with increased of attaining grid parity by 2015. The benefits are
proliferation of all renewable technologies, including achieved through innovation in crystal growth and ingot
photovoltaics. Figure 2 shows a roadmap for LCOE to slicing, low-cost technology development for efficiency
quantify the need for technology development [5]. In enhancement and the use of thinner wafers. Model
Figure 2, LCOE contours are plotted as a function of calculations show that 20% screen printed cells on
module price and efficiency for a location in Phoenix, ~170 μm thick wafers produced from $40/kg feedstock
AZ. As an example, 18% to 20% efficient modules at a Si can lead to ~$1.20/W modules, ≤$3.0/W installed
price of $1.00 to $1.25/W can produce electricity at ~10 system cost and LCOE of ~10 ¢/kWh [5].
¢/kWh. This assumes a BOS cost of $2/W for 20%
efficient modules, resulting in an installed system cost 3. Photovoltaic Distributed Generation
of $3.0. Figure 2 also shows that the price of a 10% Numerous North American utilities are experiencing
efficient module needs to be ~ 60 ¢/kW in order to rapid proliferation of investor-owned solar photovoltaic
produce electricity at 10 ¢/kWh and a less than 8% distributed generation (PV-DG) on their distribution
efficient module cannot attain grid parity even if it is
feeders. This is being driven by the need to comply
free unless significant successes are achieved in
with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and the
reducing the BOS cost.
availability of incentives for electricity production
using renewable resources [1].
PV-DG may be classified as micro, small, medium
and utility-scale:
1979
one of the main drivers of PV-DG impacts on utility interconnection standards and planning
distribution feeders, penetration level may be defined guidelines need to be revisited to ensure that all these
on a feeder basis as the ratio of the total installed aspects are appropriately taken into account.
capacity of PV-DG vs. a predefined feeder demand [3]. Section 4 of this paper discusses impacts of PV-DG
A convenient approach is to use the PV-DG system’s on power distribution systems and measures to mitigate
AC ratings (PPVAC) and the annual minimum feeder load them, with emphasis on utility-scale PV-DG. In order to
at times of maximum PV-DG output (PFmin,PVmax), e.g., capture a wide range of possible phenomena and
at noon, as shown in (1), where Pi,PVAC is the AC rating impacts, the results of analysis performed for a variety
of the i-th PV-DG plant in the feeder: of scenarios on real distribution feeders are presented
and discussed. These scenarios cover different
σ ǡುೇಲ penetration levels and location of PV-DG and various
ܲ ൌ సబ (1)
ಷǡುೇೌೣ feeder loading conditions.
Using this definition the following penetration levels 4. PV-DG Impacts on Distribution Systems
may be defined: Some of the most common impacts driven by PV-
DG integration on distribution systems are:
• Low penetration:
σୀ ܲǡ ൏ ݇ଵ ܲிǡ௫ • Reverse power flow: high penetration levels of PV-
• Moderate penetration: DG can lead to reverse active power flow at feeder
݇ଵ ܲிǡ௫ ൏ σୀ ܲǡ ൏ ݇ଶ ܲிǡ௫ and substation transformer level. This condition
• High penetration: may affect overcurrent protection coordination and
σୀ ܲǡ ݇ଶ ܲிǡ௫ the operation of line voltage regulators, particularly
of those set to forward operation mode and/or Line
A similar definition may be used for determining Drop Compensation (LDC) [1]. Furthermore,
penetration levels for distribution substations or reverse power flow at substation transformer level
individual distribution transformers, in that case may affect voltages and loading limits of some
PFmin,PVmax must be replaced by PSubmin,PVmax and transformers [6].
PTransfmin,PVmax, respectively. The selection of k1 and k2 • Voltage rise: PV-DG integration modifies feeder
would depend, among others, on the utility’s voltage profiles and may lead to significant voltage
distribution planning and operation guidelines and rise particularly at locations close to PV-DG plant
criteria, system characteristics, etc. For instance, if k1 = sites. This can cause violations on utility planning
1 and k2 = 2, then low penetration level does not lead to limits and industry standards, cause complaints
reverse power flow, moderate penetration causes from customers, and cause the operation of
“modest” reverse power flow and high penetration overvoltage protection systems of PV-DG plants.
produces “severe” reverse power flow at distribution Figure 3 shows an example of steady-state voltage
feeder level. A more “conservative” utility with feeders rise at four PV-DG plant sites (base case represents
that are more prone to be impacted by PV-DG may no PV-DG generation). Since the magnitude of
prefer to use k1 = 0.5 and k2 = 1 to define penetration voltage rise is, among others, a function of PV-DG
levels. However, it is worth mentioning that other output, in this case the voltage profiles follow the
definitions may also be used, e.g., penetration level on typical bell-shape of PV-DG output. Voltage rise is
the basis of the percentage of residential customers that a limitation for integration when large PV-DG
adopt the technology, i.e., that install PV-DG systems. units are connected at the end of long, lightly-
It is worth noting that conventional DG output is loaded feeders.
relatively constant and controllable, therefore most of • Voltage fluctuations: PV-DG intermittency can
its impacts can be investigated through steady state have significant impacts on feeder voltages. This is
analyses. Due to the intermittency of its primary more noticeable on feeders with low short-circuit
resource due to clouding phenomena, PV-DG impacts power levels, i.e., with low stiffness factor, and on
also need to be analyzed by means of dynamic studies. PV-DG plants located far from distribution
Given the complexity of these studies, impacts and substations. Figures 4 and 5 show examples of PV-
mitigation measures are more difficult to identify, and DG intermittency. Figure 4 shows the output
utilities and distribution planners are generally are less profiles of a real PV-DG plant for the month of
prepared to deal with them. Moreover, many existing August of 2010. This plot shows that significant
1980
fluctuations with magnitudes as hhigh as 1.5 MW he basis of customer
level defined in this case on th
may occur in a matter of a few m minutes. Similarly that adopt the technology).
Figure 5 shows a histogram of PV V-DG outputs of
the same plant for 10 AM of the m month of June of
90
2010. This plot shows the wide raange of observed
80
variations for this PV-DG plant. Evidently these
large output variations may leaad to significant 70
Frequency
power quality issues and coomplaints from 50
customers. The severity of these voltage 40
fluctuations and power quality issues can be
30
evaluated using specialized tools annd models.
20
Voltage Profile PV-DG - Minimum Case
C
1.05 10
1.04 0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.03
P (MW)
Voltage (PU)
1.02
Figure 5. Histogram of PV-DG outp
put intermittency
1.01
Fir
1.00
1.60
0% 50% 100%
1981
given the fact that additional power electronics- • Interaction with voltage-controlled capacitor banks,
interfaced equipment is expected to be connected LTCs, and line voltage regulators: Voltage rise and
to the distribution grid, e.g., Plug-in Electric voltage fluctuations may cause an increase in the
Vehicles and Distributed Energy Storage (DES). tap changes LTCs and line voltage regulators, and
Therefore, interaction among all these equipment cause switching of voltage-controlled capacitor
plus the presence of capacitor banks on the banks. This in turn can cause additional voltage
distribution system may lead to other harmonic and reactive power flow fluctuations, affect power
related issues such as resonance. Figure 8 shows quality, equipment maintenance frequency and life-
the THD values for different feeder locations and cycle, and impact the implementation of advanced
100% penetration of PV-DG. Volt-VAr Optimization (VVO) schemes such as
Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR).
40
5. Mitigation Measures
Ploss (kW)
30
The severity of the steady-state and dynamic issues
20
caused by PV-DG integration is estimated via impact
10 studies. The objective of these studies is to determine
0
economically feasible mitigation measures that alleviate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the impacts and facilitate integration of PV-DG plants.
Hour
Mitigation measures are a function of the nature of the
impacts identified during the studies (steady state,
BASE 10% 20% 30%
40% 50% 60% 70% dynamic or both) and applicable regulation, policies
80% 90% 100%
and standards. Alternatives for mitigating PV-DG
Figure 7. Feeder losses as a function of PV-DG penetration level
impacts can be classified as conventional and smart grid
for two real distribution feeders
0.05
Harmonic Spectrum at source
approaches. Conventional approaches include the
utilization of existing technologies, examples of this
are:
0.05
Harmonic Spectrum at mid point
modify or customize their control settings (e.g.,
reference voltage) to account for the voltage rise
and load offset (e.g., for Line Drop Compensation
applications) introduced by PV-DG plants
• Modify control settings of capacitor banks, relocate
0.0
[83] 0.00442317
Harmonic Spectrum at end point
existing capacitor banks, and install controls on
0.05
fixed capacitor banks
• Rebalance feeder loads to mitigate steady state
high voltage, voltage and current unbalance, and
reduce voltage fluctuations
• Use express or dedicated feeders for independent
0.0
1982
limits) or under a power factor schedule simulations is 1.04 PU. The results show how dynamic
• Implement dynamic volt-VAr compensation volt-VAr compensation outperforms power factor
schemes using either PV-DG inverters or Flexible mitigation. The highest voltage with no mitigation
AC Distribution Systems (FACDS) such as exceeds 1.52 p.u. (curve b), with power factor
distribution Static Synchronous Compensator mitigation is limited to 1.05 p.u. (curve c), and while
(STATCOM), commercially known as D-VAr [7] with volt-VAr compensation is limited to 1.4 p.u.
• Use DES to level out and “firm” PV-DG output (curve d).
during intermittency conditions and mitigate
voltage fluctuations
6. PV-DG Impacts on Generation Costs
In the following sections, an installation involving
• Using Direct Transfer Trip schemes (DTT) or various PV-DG capacities distributed across the feeder
grounding banks to prevent ungrounded system is investigated from the standpoint of ecological and
operation and TOV during accidental islanding of economic effectiveness. While some simplifying
PV-DG assumptions are being made (mostly due to the lack of
• Use directional protection to prevent overcurrent actual data), the conclusions drawn are not impacted by
protection miss-operation. those simplifications.
• Use GPS-based synchrophasor measurement
Solar radiation
technology to detect islanding.
Figure 9 show the simulation results of operating
PV-DG plants at fixed non-unity leading power factor
for the same plants as Figure 3. The results show that
the steady-state voltage increase at the PV-DG plant No mitigation
1.04
PF mitigation
1.03
Voltage (PU)
1.02
1.01
0.98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Time (seconds)
PV1-Base PV2-Base PV3-Base PV4-Base
PV1-Connected PV2-Connected PV3-Connected PV4-Connected Figure 10. Dynamic voltage fluctuations at PV-DG plant site: a)
Figure 9. Voltage rise at PV-DG plant sites (mitigation case using solar radiation, b) no mitigation, c) mitigation using fixed non-
fixed non-unity leading power factor of 0.97) unity leading power factor of 0.97, and d) mitigation using
dynamic volt-VAr compensation scheme using PV-DG inverters
However, in some cases the utilization of a fixed
non-unity leading power factor does not mitigate A load profile varies in time in accordance with the
voltage fluctuations or voltage violations during rapid customer type (residential, commercial, agricultural and
PV-DG output fluctuations caused by intermittency pumping, industrial, and large industrial customers).
(incident solar radiation fluctuation due to clouding). The load profiles used in this analysis are obtained from
Such situation may require implementing a dynamic actual utility data [11]. To account statistically for a
volt-VAr compensation scheme using PV-DG inverters, variety of types of loads, reactive power consumption is
this schemes dynamically modifies the inverters generated randomly while the power factor is kept over
reactive power output, i.e., the plant power factor, to 0.85. It is assumed that all the individual customer
keep voltages within predefined limits. Figure 10 shows loads have nearly identical load profiles at the feeder.
solar radiation (top curve) and a comparison of three Feeder peak demand is assumed to be 3.49 MW applied
cases, b) no mitigation, c) mitigation using fixed non- to the IEEE 123 test feeder. The characteristics of
unity leading power factor, and d) mitigation using different load profiles are analyzed in Figures 11 and
dynamic volt-VAr compensation scheme using PV-DG 12. Figure 11 presents the load duration curves of total
inverters. The maximum voltage limit in these active power of each load type. It shows that large
1983
550
industrial type loads exceed the active power load Large Industrial
profile most often, while residential type loads are least 500 Agriculture and Pumping
Industrial
likely to exceed it. Figure 12 presents the probability 450
Commercial
curves of total active power of each load type. 400
Residential
Generation cost in $
4000 350
Large Industrial
Agricultural and Pumping 300
3500
Industrial
250
Commercial
3000 Residential
200
150
Power in kW
2500
100
2000
50
0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100%
Figure 13. The generation cost curve in 100 kW blocks of
1500
each load type in 2010
1000
According to the assumed cost rate for base,
500
intermediate, and peak power generation, the projected
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100%
Percentage of time that power exceeds curve[%] annual generation costs are calculated. The elements in
Figure 11. Duration curves of annual 3-phase active power of the following tables are obtained using the following
each load type in 2010 formula where Pi is the active power produced in hour i
Interaction between DG utilization and load profile will of the year and CPi is the cost of avoided generation at
affect the total energy costs. For the utility, the benefit the same time:
of using DG is avoided energy production near peak 8760
levels and reduction in transmission and distribution
Annual
CGeneration = ¦P ×C
i =1
i Pi
losses. Reducing the effective feeder load in the
distribution networks where it is installed also reduces The validation of the PV system output in the Atlanta
the transmission and distribution losses. area was obtained using the System Advisor Model
The total energy savings can be translated into the total (SAM) from NREL to compare the performance of the
generation cost savings. Assumed costs for base, 340 kW system on Georgia Tech campus with its
intermediate, peak power generation are shown in Table modeled forecast. The results, shown in Figure 14,
1. The generation cost curve in 100 kW blocks is shown show a good agreement between the actual and
in Figure 13. forecasted data.
0.35 50
Residential GTAC PV SIM
Commercial 45 SAM
0.3
Industrial
Agricultural and Pumping 40
0.25 Large Industrial
35
Net Output in MWh
0.2 30
Probability
25
0.15
20
0.1
15
0.05 10
5
0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Power in kW 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 12. Probability curves of annual 3-phase active power of Figure 14. Comparison of SAM and GTAC PV simulation
each load type in 2010 program at the 90° azimuth (facing east) and 15° tilt angle
1984
Table 1. Levelized cost data for generation [12] etc.). In addition to CO2 reduction, it can also cause
Capacity Generation Cost water footprint reduction through avoided
Fuel
(kW) ($/MWh) thermoelectric and hydroelectric generation, fuel
Base Coal, Coal: 78$ ~ 144 $ reduction, such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas in
0~1500
Power Nuclear Nuclear: 107$ ~ 138$
the thermal power generation. Energy savings and
Intermedia IGCC, IGCC: 110$ ~ 141$
1500~3000 replacement values using alternative energy generation
te Power GCC GCC: 74$ ~ 102$
Peak Gas are shown in Table 2.
3000~ Gas Peak: 225$ ~ 342$
Power turbine If shaving of peak load levels is the main objective, it
is possible to orient the PV system more westward,
7. PV-DG Impacts on Energy Savings thereby boosting the PV output at the peak load times at
The main objective of PV installation is to boost the the expense of some reduction of the overall production
energy savings. Figure 15 shows annual estimated of energy. Assuming that a feeder has 3,000 kW critical
monthly PV generation output of an assumed PV peak loads, if the total critical load reductions are 1000
system in the Atlanta area in the United States. It is kW in the presence of a 10% PV generation with 100
assumed that the total PV capacity is equal to 40 % of hours/year, then the avoided generation cost at peak
the peak load demand. Figure 16 presents the impact of rate is 21,280 [$/year] per feeder. Table 3 presents this
PV on feeder load demand. Penetration levels from 0- potential impact of the cost for the critical peak load on
40% are assumed. each penetration level. Figure 17 shows the annual total
1600 300
Total Demand
generation cost curves of each penetration level.
1400 PV Output Generation(40%)
250 Table 2. Energy savings and replacement values on a IEEE test
Monthly PV Output Generation in MWh
200 PV
Energy Thermoelectr. Hydroelect Weighd
1000 Penetr. Reduction
Savings Site Water . Total Site
Rate
MWh/yr tons/yr MGal/yr MGal/yr MGal/yr
800 150 10% 538.12 339.0 0.3 25.5 0.9
20% 1070.95 689.0 0.6 50.8 1.8
600 30% 1598.49 1028.3 1.0 75.8 2.6
100 40% 2119.77 1364.0 1.3 100.5 3.5
Fuel
400 PV
Coal Petrol Natural Gas Other Biomass
Penetr.
50 Gases
Rate
200 tons/yr Barrels/yr Cubic Feet/yr Mbtu/yr Mbtu/yr
10% 286.1 942.4 4153767.2 4325.1 5718.1
0 0 20% 569.3 1875.5 8266700.7 8607.6 11380.1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 30% 849.8 2799.3 12338800.6 12847.7 16985.8
Figure 15. Annual PV generation and load demand 40% 1126.9 3712.2 16362579.3 17037.4 22525.0
1985
generation at base load. According to the typical cost with respect to operational aspects in distribution
rate for base, intermediate, and peak power generation, networks, as well as energy savings, ecological, and
the projected annual generation costs are presented in generation cost. In addition, this study addresses
Table 4. potential cost impacts on critical peak load.
Continuously decreasing prices and increasing
550
efficiencies of the PV modules and BOS and favorable
500 0% analyses of large level integrations of renewable
10%
450 generation into distribution networks offer
400
opportunities for peak load reduction, as well as
reduction of electric utilities carbon and water
Generation Cost in $
350
footprints. When the combined impact of these factors
300 Peak is taken into account, grid parity may be reached sooner
250 than some analysts are predicting.
200 9. Acknowlegement
150 The authors gratefully acknowledge support of
100
National Science Foundation under grant #0836046
Critical Peak Load (100 Hours/Year) which was used for part of the work presented herein.
50
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Power in kW
10. References
Figure 17. Annual generation cost curve for penetration levels [1] J. Romero Agüero, S. Steffel, “Integration Challenges of
Photovoltaic Distributed Generation on Power Distribution
Table 4. Total annual generation costs of each penetration level Systems”, Proceedings of IEEE PES 2011 General Meeting,
Detroit, MI, July 2011.
Total Projected [2] http://www.petrasolar.com/downloads/SunWave-UP-Series.pdf
Energy Cost
Penetration Consumed Generation [3] M. Ropp, J. Newmiller, C. Whitaker, B. Norris, “Review of
Savings Savings
Rate Energy Cost potential problems and utility concerns arising from high
MWh/yr MWh/yr $/yr $/yr penetration levels of photovoltaics in distribution systems”,
A A0% AN % B B0% BN % 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference 2008, San
0% 10419.06 0 $1,262,919 0 Diego, CA
10% 9880.94 538.12 $1,199,792 $63,126 [4] Rohatgi.A., Ristow.A., Das.A., Ramanathan.S., Road to Cost
20% 9348.11 1070.95 $1,138,441 $124,478 Effective Silicon PV, 18th I-PVSEC, Jan 2009.
30% 8820.57 1598.49 $1,076,766 $186,153 [5] Kim, P., Polivarapu, H., “Solar Photovoltaic Industry: 2011
40% 8299.29 2119.77 $1,016,124 $246,794 Outlook – FIT cuts in key markets point to over-supply,”
Deutsche Bank, January 5, 2011.
The results shown in Table 4 do not take into account [6] L.M. Cipcigan, P.C. Taylor, Investigation of the reverse power
the cost of PV generators installed on a feeder. The flow requirements of high penetrations of small-scale embedded
third column represents energy savings through local generation, IET Renewable Power Generation, pp. 160-166, No.
3, Vol. 1, Sep. 2007.
PV production at penetration levels equal to [7] http://www.amsc.com/products/transmissiongrid/reactive-
percentages of the peak load (first column). The cost power-AC-transmission.html
savings accounting for types of avoided generation [8] G.M Masters, Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems,
technologies are shown in the last two columns. It is Wiley, 2004
[9] T.A. Short, Electric Power Distribution Handbook, CRC Press,
assumed that such generation may be the result of green 2003
energy incentive programs or individual customer [10] Miroslav M. Begovic, Insu Kim,” Distributed Renewable PV
initiative. If the cost of PV is taken into account, it Generation in Urban Distribution Networks”, Proceedings 2011
IEEE PSCE, March 2011, Phoenix, AZ.
would allow calculating the break even times for [11] http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/Regulatory/loadprofiles/2010lo
economic recovery of the investment. As those costs adprofiles.htm
are rapidly declining at the present time, it is reasonable [12] “Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, Version 3.0”, Lazard, pp.
2, February 2009. Begovic, M., Pregelj, A., Rohatgi, A., “Four-
to assume that PV technology will reach grid parity at year performance assessment of the 342 kW PV system at
some time between 2013 and 2017 in the most Georgia Tech”, Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2000.
developed countries. Conference Record of the Twenty-Eighth IEEE 15-22 Sept.
2000 Page(s):1575 – 1578
[13] Seth Borin, Joy Wang, and Valerie Thomas, “City of Atlanta
8. Conclusions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory”, pp. 9, March 2009. P.
This paper provides a viewpoint of technological and Torcellini, N. Long, and R. Judkoff, “Consumptive Water Use
for U.S. Power Production”, NREL, pp. 5, December 2003.
economic snapshot of the current PV technology with a “Annual Energy Review 2009”, U.S. Energy Information
view of achieving grid parity in the near future, and Administration, pp. 230, August 2010
presents a discussion of the impact of PV generation
1986