Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M. Braun
ISET
Institut fuer Solare Energieversorgungstechnik e. V.
Koenigstor 59, D-34119 Kassel, Germany
Phone +49(0)561/7294-118
E-mail: mbraun@iset.uni-kassel.de
100% 3
Figure 5: Losses due to reactive power supply Q
98%
with different active power transfer P
Losses [%Smax]
96%
Two cases are distinguished for the cost
94%
1 assessment:
92%
Active WEC (P > 0):
Active power generated by the wind turbine is fed
90% 0
into the mains grid. In addition reactive power is
0 20 40 60 80 100
supplied. The additional losses accompanying the
Apparent Power (%Smax) reactive power supply reduce the active power
injection. Hence, the costs of the additional losses
Figure 4: Efficiency (red) and losses (blue) of an are the opportunity costs due to reduced active
exemplary grid-side inverter of a WEC power supply. Active power production by WECs is
site-dependent and can vary considerably.
The considered grid-side inverter has a maximal Average costs of active power generation by
efficiency etamax = 98%. The values of active power WECs in Germany can be estimated as 9 c€/kWh
losses and apparent power are given in percent of [13,14] within the range of the feed-in tariffs of 4-
9 c€/kWh for the years 2005-2015 [15]. studying the benefits for network operation.
This section provides a comparison with
Inactive WEC (P = 0): conventional reactive power supply technologies,
According to the measurement database (Table 1) network purchase, and an analysis of the benefits
the WEC did not generate active power in 5% of of reactive power based ancillary services for
the 5 minutes intervals. The inverter’s losses are network operation.
then compensated by the external grid (here:
mains) resulting in costs due to the tariff of active
power purchase. These costs of active power 4.1 Comparison with Conventional
purchase vary with regard to voltage level, energy Reactive Power Supply Technologies
supplier and consumption profile. Here we
consider costs of 9 c€/kWh [16].
The following conventional devices for reactive
With the given assumptions the operational costs power supply are looked at:
of reactive power supply by WECs can be 1. static capacitors and reactors;
classified in cost ranges as given in Figure 6 2. static compensators with power
showing electronics;
• an increase of the costs with increasing 3. synchronous condensers; and
reactive power supply; and 4. synchronous generators of conventional
power plants.
• a decline of the costs of a certain reactive
power supply with increasing active power
supply. 4.1.1 Static Capacitors and Reactors
These functional dependencies lead to the general A standard network component for reactive power
finding that the operational costs are the lowest at compensation is a capacitor bank. The analysis of
low levels of reactive power supply. This goes costs of capacitor banks results in the kVArh
alongside with the finding in section 3.1: Reactive prices displayed in Figure 7. They depend on the
power should be preferably delivered by many used full load hours: few full load hours cause high
WECs instead of few ones. costs per kVArh which are reduced rapidly with
increasing full load hours. The cost estimation is
based on the following assumptions: investment
costs of 15 €/kVAr [17], lifetime of 20 years,
discount rate of 5%, losses of 1.5 W/kVAr [17] and
power purchase costs of 9 c€/kWh [16]. Figure 7
includes two operational cost ranges of reactive
power supply by WECs according to Figure 6. The
additional investment costs are not yet considered.
0.15
Capacitor Banks
Costs of Q [c€/kVArh]
0.10
WEC:
0.03 - 0.10 c€/kVArh
0.05
WEC:
Figure 6: Ranges of operational cost of reactive < 0.03 c€/kVArh
power supply by WECs 0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
(Smax = 1.1Pmax and step size = 1%Pmax) Full Load Hours [h/a]
with S g − P 2 + (Q − Qw )
2
ΔS =
2 Qw
⎛ 1 ⎞ (7) (9)
Q = P ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1 > 0.
⎝ cos(ϕ ) ⎠ S g − (S g ⋅ cos(ϕ )) + (S g ⋅ sin(ϕ ) − Qw )
2 2
=
Qw
The reduction of active power losses by reactive
power compensation Q relative to Q [kW/kVAr] is Figure 9 shows that the loading can be reduced by
then defined by: 15% (cos(φ)=0.98), 30% (cos(φ)=0.94) or 45%
(cos(φ)=0.87) of the WEC’s reactive power supply
ΔPL =
[( )
dPL ⋅ P 2 + Q 2 − P 2 ]
= dPL ⋅ Q at a penetration level of 20%. This reduction is
Q (8) significant. With the range of ΔS = 15-45% and
2 network costs of 30-60 €/kVAa [20,25] the benefit
⎛ 1 ⎞ can be calculated as 4.5-27 €/kVAra which is by
= dPL ⋅ P ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1
⎝ cos(ϕ ) ⎠ far greater than the investment costs in Table 2.
The operational costs can be neglected because
With costs for the compensation of active power some hours of reactive power compensation, say
losses of 5 c€/kWh [24] the benefit of the loss 10-30 h/a for solving the congestions, result in only
reduction is given in Table 3. 1-3 c€/kVAra with 0.1 c€/kVArh according to
A comparison with the costs in Figure 6 shows that Figure 6.
it can be economically attractive to use WECs for The calculated benefit is by far higher than the
reactive power compensation in network situations costs of reactive power compensation by WECs.
with high network losses and low load power However, most networks operate below 100%
factors (high reactive power flow). capacity. In such state the described congestion
management does not have any benefit. However,
in the future with a more optimised network
operation and design, the reactive power
compensation capability of distributed generation losses in the order of 5 c€/kWh [24] we get to a
can be applied effectively for using the network value of approx. 240 Mio € of loss reduction. This
infrastructure more effectively at higher loading calculation does not take into account the value of
levels. The peak load normally occurs on winter the increased network capacity and further
evenings in Europe [26] or under emergency benefits for network operation (e.g. voltage
network situations. control).
The overall benefits and costs of reactive power
60% supply are often considered as minor cost factors
Pw = 5%Sg
in the total electricity supply turnover.
Relative Reduction of Loading by
50% Pw = 20%Sg
Nevertheless, it is very important from an
Reactive Power Supply
Pw = 50%Sg
40% economic perspective because it allows operating
the network more stable and secure, e.g. by
30%
keeping the voltage limits, solving congestions,
20% supporting stability in case of faults and flexible
islanded operation (Microgrid concept [27]). As
10%
stated in [22]: “inadequate reactive power leading
0% to voltage collapse has been a causal factor in
0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.85 major power outages worldwide”.
cos(phi)