2014 PV Distribution System Modeling Workshop: High Penetration PV Control Comparisons and...

High Penetration PV Control Comparisons and Model-

Centric Smart Grid CBA

May 7, 2014

1

Robert Broadwater [email protected] www.edd-us.com

© Copyright Electrical Distribution Design, Inc. 2014

http://www.edd-us.com



© Copyright Electrical Distribution Design, Inc. 2014 Confidential 2

Model-Centric Smart Grid CBA

Model-Centric Smart Grid

Performance Analysis +

Economic Analysis +

Lab Testing +

Field Validation =

Model-Centric Smart Grid

Reliability, Efficiency, Capacity, Protection, Controllability


Incremental Grid Modernization CBA

Phase-Balance (no capacitors)

Phase Balance for Time

Varying Load

Capacitor Design (capacitors on local control)

Cap Design for Time

Varying Load

Auto Reconfiguration,

Monte Carlo

CBA1

CBA2

CBA3

CBA4

Base System (not optimized,

some capacitors)

“Dependency Ordering” of Investments

Coordinated

Control

Coordinated Control

Distribution Automation

(blue sky days) (storm conditions) Reliability

Efficiency Energy

Time Series Analysis


Time Series Analysis Example


% Errors between Load Factor and Time Series Analysis

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

% E

rro

rs B

etw

ee

n T

ime

Se

rie

s an

d

Load

Fac

tor

Cal

cula

tio

ns

Feeders


Present Value Savings for 10 Years

Case

Cost (Inc/Total)

($000)

Savings Type

Case Savings ($000)

$ Saved / $ Invested (Inc/Total)

Efficiency (Inc/Total)

($000)

Energy (Inc/Total)

($000)

Capital ($000)

Operation

($000) CI

($000)

CBA1 163/163 94/94 29/29 NA NA NA 123 0.75/0.75

CBA2 564/727 227/321 2,234/2,263 NA NA NA 2461 4.36/3.55

CBA3 68/795 88/409 2,064/4,328 NA NA NA 2,132 31.65/5.74

CBA4 1,953/2,748 NA NA 7,014 7,646 9,566 24,226 12.4/10.54

$1.4 ~ Residential $230 ~ Commercial $650 ~ Industrial

Societal Benefits Estimated CO2 reduction = 76,330 tons


Validation of Phase Balancing

Crew Phase Balancing Operation Amps

Days 1 2 3 4 5 6



High Penetration PV Control Comparisons

Control Approach

• Configurable, Hierarchical, Model-based, Scheduling Control = Forecast – Monitor – Schedule - Adjust

• Collects circuit-wide information and uses model to calculate set-points for control devices

• Sends control set-points to both utility control devices and PV controllers

• Strives to maintain the voltage profile that exists without PV generation while minimizing circuit losses and reducing the motion of utility control devices


CHMSC Control Architecture

CHMSC

PV Controller

PV Controller

PV Generator

PV Generator

...

...

Local PV Controller

PV Generator

Base Controller

Base Controller

Voltage Regulator

Switched Capacitor

...

...

Local Base Controller

Voltage Regulator, Switched Capacitor

Controllable PV Uncontrollable PV Controllable Automated DeviceUncontrollable

Automated Device


Local Voltage Controller

Grid

+ GainVset-point

-

V

Q Limit

++

Q

Q

Vset-point

QMax

QMax

Reactive Power

Voltage

Slope = GainSupplyReactivePower

ConsumeReactivePower

(a) voltage-reactive power control block diagram (b) voltage-reactive power characteristics


CHMSC Algorithm

Updates periodically, where every five minutes is currently used

Updates set-point schedules for base and/or PV control only if schedules change significantly

If a communication failure occurs, the local controllers continue to work against the previously provided schedule as long as local constraint violations do not occur

Load Forecast

Base Controller Schedules

PV Controller Schedules

Set-point Scheduling

Solar Forecast


Circuit Model


123% PV penetration

1 Second PV Generation Data


Controls Evaluated

CHMSC: Feeder losses and utility controller motion are minimized and voltage set-points are used for PV generators

CHMSC – 116V: Average customer voltage set-point at 116V

CHMSC – 124V: Average customer voltage set-point at 124V

CHMSC (PF set): Power factor set-points used for PV generators

CHMSC – 116V (PF set): Average customer voltage set-point at 116V with power factor set-points provided to PV generators

CHMSC – 124V (PF set): Average customer voltage set-point at 124V with power factor set-points provided to PV generators

Local control only (116V): 116V set-point used by all PV generators

Local control only (124V): 124V set-point used by all of PV generators


CHMSC Results: Sub Q Flow


CHMSC with 116V/124V SPs: Sub Q Flow


CHMSC with 116V/124V SPs


Sub Q Flow Comparison


Average PF Results Comparison


Average Q Generation Comparison


Circuit Loss Comparison

Real power loss (kW) comparison between local control and CHMSC


Circuit Loss Comparison

Local Control CHMSC Improvement

Real Power Loss (kW-hr) 198.98 kW-hr 123.25 kW-hr 38.06%

Reactive Power Loss (kVAR-hr) 240.69 kVar-hr 130.38 kVar-hr 45.83%



Comparing CHMSC with Local Control with Increasing PV Penetration – 2 Hour Study

Control Device Motion Comparison

Reduction in control device movement with CHMSC with increasing PV penetration


Voltage Violation Comparison

Number of voltage violations during 2 hour period with increasing PV penetration


Conclusions

CHMSC requires less reactive power flow at substation

CHMSC provides higher power factor at PV

• CHMSC has less reactive power generation at PV generator

CHMSC results in lower circuit loss

CHMSC results in fewer utility device controller steps

CHMSC results in fewer voltage and overload violations


2014 PV Distribution System Modeling Workshop: High Penetration PV Control Comparisons and...

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of 2014 PV Distribution System Modeling Workshop: High Penetration PV Control Comparisons and...