Distributed Renewable Energy Operating Impacts and Valuation Study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix F Figure F-2. SAM Input Screen - Commercial F.5 Typical Photovoltaic System Performance in the Phoenix Area Photovoltaic systems in the Phoenix area have a wide range of performance. Based on various reports, the annual performance in kilowatt-hours per DC kilowatt per year vary from about 1300 to 1800 kWh per kW DC . (This ratio is sometimes called Final Annual Yield or FAY.) Results from APS’s customer-installed PV systems were not available, so a number of other sources were consulted. For example: 1. A letter report from Sandia National Laboratories implies about 1300 kWh/kW DC per year. 2. An APS/Sandia paper showing data from 1998 through 2003 on APS-owned and operated PV systems lists the following Final Annual Yields: – Fixed Horizontal 1324 kWh/kW DC – Fixed Latitude Tilt 1479 kWh/kW DC F-4 | R. W. Beck, Inc. Arizona Public Service
Photovoltaic system modeling – One-Axis NS Tracking Horizontal 1813 kWh/kW DC – One-Axis NS Tracking Tilt 2032 kWh/kW DC 3. A report by Arizona State University’s Photovoltaic Testing Laboratory for Salt River Project lists annual production for three “well-behaved” systems as 1520, 1400 and 1690 kWh/kW DC , and concludes that the primary difference is due to array tilt angle. The closer the tilt is to the local latitude angle of 33.4 degrees, the more energy is produced. Based on these reports and other information, many factors come into play in the energy production of a PV system. For example, a few of these factors are: • Orientation and tracking. A fixed array will have better performance if south-facing and tilted at the latitude angle. Tracking systems have better performance than fixed arrays. Note, however, that optimized orientation is not always feasible for many PV projects. • PV technology. Some technologies have better temperature coefficients than others. Their performance under hot conditions does not degrade as much, and they have higher annual energy production. • Shading. Some customer-sited systems have partial shading due to trees, chimneys, etc. • Age of the system. A typical assumption is 1 percent per year degradation in output, so older systems produce less energy than newer systems. • Wiring losses. Some systems have longer conductor runs, and may have greater wiring loss. • Soiling loss. Some systems may have greater dirt buildup than others, resulting in relatively poorer performance. • Relative inverter loading. This factor is still not well quantified, but a lightly loaded inverter may have lower conversion losses than heavily-loaded inverters. Based on all of these factors, the expected annual performance for a “typical” tilted, residential system was estimated at about 1630 kWh per kW DC for this study. The input loss assumptions for SAM were adjusted (calibrated) to reflect this output. Other PV model results were then calculated by SAM using different solar data, different orientations, etc., but with the same loss factor input assumptions. Distributed Renewable Energy Operating Impacts & Valuation Study R. W. Beck, Inc. | F-5
Page 1:
PREPARED FOR: ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVIC
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS List of Tables............
Page 7 and 8:
Contents 5. Technical Value - Power
Page 9 and 10:
Contents TABLES 1-1 RES Eligible Te
Page 11 and 12:
Contents FIGURES 1-1 RES Compliance
Page 13 and 14:
5-6 Typical Output, Single-Axis Tra
Page 15 and 16:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Abundant sunshine
Page 17 and 18:
Executive Summary many uncertaintie
Page 19 and 20:
Executive Summary In contrast to al
Page 21 and 22:
Executive Summary Capital Reduction
Page 23 and 24:
Executive Summary Annual Energy and
Page 25 and 26:
Executive Summary commercial custom
Page 27 and 28:
Executive Summary Creation of a suc
Page 29 and 30:
SECTION 1 — STUDY BACKGROUND AND
Page 31 and 32:
Study Background and Description 1.
Page 33 and 34:
Study Background and Description in
Page 35 and 36:
Study Background and Description Fi
Page 37 and 38:
Study Background and Description SH
Page 39 and 40:
Study Background and Description Ta
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Study Background and Description 1.
Page 45 and 46:
Study Background and Description AP
Page 47 and 48:
Study Background and Description cu
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Study Background and Description to
Page 53:
Study Background and Description in
Page 56 and 57:
Section 2 and commercial customers.
Page 58 and 59:
Section 2 Figure 2-2: Photovoltaic
Page 60 and 61:
Section 2 When weighted by capacity
Page 62 and 63:
Section 2 PV Model Inputs Two basel
Page 64 and 65:
Section 2 Figure 2-5: Phoenix Area
Page 66 and 67:
Section 2 Figure 2-7: Typical Sprin
Page 68 and 69:
Section 2 account shading at the ho
Page 70 and 71:
Section 2 • Residential: • A so
Page 72 and 73:
Section 2 • Thermosyphon systems
Page 74 and 75:
Section 2 existing systems installe
Page 76 and 77:
Section 2 Figure 2-12: Hourly SHW S
Page 78 and 79:
Section 2 Figure 2-14: Active Dayli
Page 80 and 81:
Section 2 Daylighting Costs Capital
Page 82 and 83:
Section 2 • An interior diffusion
Page 84 and 85:
Section 2 Key Findings of Commercia
Page 86 and 87:
Section 2 2.5 Deployment Analysis 2
Page 88 and 89:
Section 2 Table 2-11 Residential PV
Page 90 and 91:
Section 2 Commercial PV PV systems
Page 92 and 93:
Section 2 was conceived by Frank Ba
Page 94 and 95:
Section 2 Kastovich. 36 The formula
Page 96 and 97:
Section 2 Figure 2-20: PV Payback -
Page 98 and 99:
Section 2 Figure 2-22: PV Payback -
Page 100 and 101:
Section 2 Figure 2-24: Daylighting
Page 102 and 103:
Section 2 • The forecast of the a
Page 104 and 105:
Section 2 Results of Market Simulat
Page 107 and 108:
SECTION 3 — TECHNICAL VALUE - DIS
Page 109 and 110:
Technical Value - Distribution Syst
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139:
Page 142 and 143:
Section 4 Both of these benefits ar
Page 144 and 145:
Section 4 decrease both real and re
Page 146 and 147:
Section 4 • A simplifying assumpt
Page 148 and 149:
Section 4 Results The effects of as
Page 150 and 151:
Section 4 may have excess schedulin
Page 152 and 153:
Section 4 4.3.2 Local Reliability/R
Page 154 and 155:
Section 4 Figure 4-3: $110 Million
Page 156 and 157:
Section 4 Figure 4-4: Historical PV
Page 158 and 159:
Section 4 Figure 4-6: Historical PV
Page 161 and 162:
SECTION 5 — TECHNICAL VALUE - POW
Page 163 and 164:
Technical Value - Power Supply Capa
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
Section 6 Value is also viewed and
Page 192 and 193:
Section 6 6.2.2 Approach to Identif
Page 194 and 195:
Section 6 Table 6-1 Levelized Carry
Page 196 and 197:
Section 6 6.4.2 Summary of Quantita
Page 198 and 199:
Section 6 Table 6-4 Capital Cost Re
Page 200 and 201:
Section 6 Table 6-6 Total Solar DE
Page 202 and 203:
Section 6 savings for the High Pene
Page 204 and 205:
Section 6 6.4.7 Fixed and Variable
Page 206 and 207:
Section 6 current demand, but assum
Page 208 and 209:
Section 6 legislation and regulatio
Page 210 and 211:
Section 6 The expansion of “green
Page 212 and 213:
Section 6 solar DE development over
Page 214 and 215:
Section 6 • Provide financing - M
Page 216 and 217:
Section 6 6.8 Conclusions The winni
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix A solar incidence: solar t
Page 221 and 222:
APPENDIX B — CALIFORNIA PV PROGRA
Page 223 and 224:
CALIFORNIA PV PROGRAM Figure B-2. C
Page 225 and 226:
CALIFORNIA PV PROGRAM largest avera
Page 227 and 228:
CALIFORNIA PV PROGRAM The data show
Page 229 and 230:
CALIFORNIA PV PROGRAM The following
Page 231:
CALIFORNIA PV PROGRAM Figure B-6. H
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix C The price of an SREC is
Page 236 and 237:
Appendix C Figure C-3. Average Cost
Page 238 and 239:
Appendix C Figure C-6. Average Cost
Page 240 and 241:
Appendix C C.2.5 Government Facilit
Page 242 and 243: Appendix C Figure C-14. Average Cap
Page 244 and 245: Appendix C Figure C-16. Total Numbe
Page 247 and 248: APPENDIX D — CUSTOMER USE CHARACT
Page 249 and 250: Customer Use Characteristics by Sel
Page 259 and 260: APPENDIX E — MONTHLY LOAD PROFILE
Page 261 and 262: Monthly Load Profiles by Selected A
Page 289 and 290: APPENDIX F — PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
Page 291: Photovoltaic system modeling Figure
Page 296 and 297: Appendix G The SRCC provides estima
Page 298 and 299: Appendix H Equipment Qualifications
Page 300 and 301: Appendix I Table I-3 Residential Ch
Page 303: Appendix J APS Incentive Schedules
Page 306 and 307: DISTRIBUTED ENERGY ADMINISTRATION P
Page 308 and 309: DISTRIBUTED ENERGY ADMINISTRATION P
Page 311: Appendix K DSS Study - Distribution
Page 314 and 315: Overview • EPRI was contracted by
Page 316 and 317: Circuit Model © 2008 Electric Powe
Page 318 and 319: Modeling Assumptions • Distributi
Page 320 and 321: Procedures After Model Conversion
Page 322 and 323: Load Models • Individual customer
Page 324 and 325: Loss Impact Analysis © 2008 Electr
Page 326 and 327: Sample Residential Solar Curves 3.0
Page 328 and 329: Hourly Average Load and Solar Curve
Page 330 and 331: Base Case Results: No Solar 12000 T
Page 332 and 333: Case 1 Results: Business as Usual 1
Page 334 and 335: Loss Analysis Results Summary Base
Page 336 and 337: Reduction in 2007 Peak Load 2007 Pe
Page 338 and 339: Voltage Regulation © 2008 Electric
Page 340 and 341: ADEQ: Fixed Horizontal commercial P
Page 342 and 343:
SOL_Desert: Fixed Latitude (residen
Page 344 and 345:
Voltage Regulation Model • Same b
Page 346 and 347:
Total PV Power Input Total PV Power
Page 348 and 349:
Effect of PV Power on Phase Current
Page 350 and 351:
Deviation between Voltage Profile 0
Page 352 and 353:
Greenfield Results with Manually Ed
Page 354 and 355:
Effect of Edited PV Profile on Tota
Page 356 and 357:
Effect of Edited PV Profile on Volt
Page 359 and 360:
APPENDIX L — MODEL RESULTS Figure
Page 361 and 362:
Model Results Figure L-5. Residenti
Page 363 and 364:
Model Results Figure L-9. Residenti
Page 365 and 366:
Model Results Figure L-13. Resident
Page 367 and 368:
Model Results Figure L-17. Resident
Page 369 and 370:
Model Results Figure L-21. Commerci
Page 371 and 372:
Model Results Figure L-25. Commerci
Page 373 and 374:
Model Results Figure L-29. Large Co
Page 375 and 376:
Model Results Figure L-33. Solar Ho
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Model Results Figure L-49. Cactus A
Page 385 and 386:
Model Results Figure L-53. East Val
Page 387 and 388:
Model Results Figure L-57. East Val
Page 389 and 390:
Model Results Figure L-61. Galvin P
Page 391 and 392:
Model Results Figure L-65. Javalina
Page 393 and 394:
Model Results Figure L-69. Pioneer
Page 395 and 396:
Model Results Figure L-73. Thompson
Page 397:
Model Results Figure L-77. DE Impac
Page 400 and 401:
Appendix M Figure M-2. Power Factor
Page 402 and 403:
Appendix M Table M-1 Data Points fo
Page 404 and 405:
Appendix M Figure M-6. Zoomed Plot
Page 406 and 407:
Appendix M Figure M-10. Plot of Tra
Page 408 and 409:
Appendix M • I harmonic number: 3
Page 410 and 411:
Appendix M • File ending: Bad •
Page 412 and 413:
Appendix M Table M-7 Limit Setups V
Page 415:
Appendix N Evaluation of Economic V
Page 418 and 419:
Appendix N N.3 Economic Value of Ca
Page 420 and 421:
Distributed Renewable Energy Operat
Page 422 and 423:
Calculation of APS Carrying Charges
Page 424:
Calculation of APS Carrying Charges
show all

Distributed Renewable Energy Operating Impacts and Valuation Study

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?