See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/43607141

Reactive power supplied by PV inverters - cost-benefit-analysis

Article

CITATIONS READS

42 3,419

1 author:

Martin Braun
Universität Kassel
223 PUBLICATIONS   2,124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NETZ:KRAFT View project

NETZ:KRAFT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Braun on 08 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy

REACTIVE POWER SUPPLIED BY PV INVERTERS -

COST-BENEFIT-ANALYSIS

M. Braun
Institut fuer Solare Energieversorgungstechnik e. V. (ISET), Koenigstor 59, D-34119 Kassel, Germany
Phone +49(0)561/7294-118, Fax +49(0)561/7294-400, E-mail: mbraun@iset.uni-kassel.de

ABSTRACT: This paper introduces in a first step the capability and availability of reactive power supply by PV
inverters. In a second step this potential is studied concerning its economic usability. This is done by a proposed approach of
allocating additional costs to reactive power supply and assessing the benefits for network operation. Based on cost-benefit-
analyses the paper presents an economic potential of using reactive power from PV inverters for distribution network
operation.
Keywords: Economic Analysis, Photovoltaic, Inverter Losses, Reactive Power, Ancillary Services

1 INTRODUCTION inverter exists of active and reactive power components.

The active power generation PPV can be assumed to be
Many loads connected to the electricity grid have a the most valuable so that it is considered to be the second
certain reactive power demand. In Germany for instance, restriction of the maximal possible reactive power supply
industrial consumers have to pay for the reactive power
demand once the power factor exceeds a certain limit. Q max (t) = S max
2
− PPV
2
(t )
Often capacitor banks are installed to compensate Since the utilisation of the PV inverter with regard to
reactive power demand in order to reduce these active power is rather low (e.g. equivalent full load hours
payments. This goes along with the objectives of network in the order of 900 h/a in Germany) a large capacity for
operators who have to control the grid’s voltage within reactive power supply can be seen. But is this large
allowed limits and who want to minimize the reactive capacity also available for reactive power supply?
power flow in the grid for the reduction of grid losses
and the reduction of congestions. Especially in
distribution networks, distributed supply of reactive
power is an option to support network operators.
Presently PV inverters are not used for reactive
power supply. This paper analyses the costs and the
benefits of this possible functionality. Firstly, it describes
the capability and availability of reactive power supply
by PV inverters. Secondly, the costs are assessed, and,
finally, a cost-benefit-analysis shows the economic
attractiveness of this additional service by PV inverters.

2 CAPABILITY OF PV INVERTERS TO SUPPLY

REACTIVE POWER

In principle all inverter-coupled generators, also PV

generators are capable of providing reactive power [1].
One limit is the maximum current of the power electronic
elements. As long as the absolute value of the current
does not exceed the limit the phase angle of the current
vector can be arbitrarily controlled. It is possible to
control active and reactive currents independently from
each other. Figure 1 presents the operational areas of the
current (analogous to the power domains) of a PV
inverter with respective restrictions. The figure shows the
current domain for a constant reference voltage. It
displays the circle of the maximum rated current Imax,R
and the maximum overload current Imax,OL. The overload
capabilities of a PV inverter are unequally distributed as
the connected DC source (i.e. the PV modules) does not
allow overload flexibility. Then, the maximum active
current IPmax is limited. The active current of the PV
inverter is determined by the solar irradiation. Within
these limitations, the reactive current of the PV inverter
can be controlled arbitrarily with response times in the
order of milliseconds.
The maximum apparent power capacity Smax of a PV
Figure 1: Current domain of a PV inverter (Imax,PV:
current domain of a PV inverter (red), Imax,R: rated
current domain of a bidirectional inverter (blue), Imax,OL:
overload current domain of a bidirectional inverter
(green))
3 AVAILABILITY OF PV INVERTERS TO SUPPLY
REACTIVE POWER
With the solar irradiation in Kassel, Germany, a
100 kVA PV inverter which connects a 110 kWp PV
generator in 2005 would have had the capability to
provide reactive power up to 40 kVAr for more than
99.9% of the year. The performance data is analysed with
mean values of 15 minutes. A more detailed overview
presents Table I with inverter dimensioning of 100 kVA
and 110 kVA (oversized). The table shows that the
availability depends a lot on the dimensioning of the PV
inverter. With only 10 kVA more (oversized), additional
20 kVAr are available over 99.9%.
 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy

Table I: Available Reactive Power Potential of a capabilities and availabilities of reactive power supply.
110 kWp PV generator in Kassel, Germany in 2005 This will increase the total additional costs for reactive
power supply. Neglecting this option, the presented paper
Availability with Availability with starts using the most economic potentials of the standard
Q in kVar
100 kVA inverter 110 kVA inverter sizing.
100 55.0% 89.1%
90 88.4% 94.7% 4.2 Additional operational costs
80 93.7% 98.3% PV generators have low operational costs as little
70 97.1% 99.8% maintenance is required in normal circumstances and no
60 99.3% > 99.9% fuel costs occur. Similar to all other power plants they
50 99.9% > 99.9% have a certain self consumption. This is assumed to be
40 > 99.9% 100% the most important cost component which is analysed in
30 > 99.9% 100% detail in this paper.
20 > 99.9% 100% The additional self consumption of PV generators
10 > 99.9% 100% due to reactive power supply can be attributed to the
additional losses of the PV inverter. This simplification
This table also shows that it is not possible to assumes that the inverter has no external power supply
guarantee 100% availability of the reactive power supply for self consumption and is installed at the point of
without oversizing the inverter. However, more than common coupling without additional losses by wiring.
99.9% is possible. The determination of the self consumption of PV
inverters starts with the available data on the inverter’s
efficiency
4 COSTS OF REACTIVE POWER SUPPLY BY PV PAC PAC
INVERTERS eta = =
PDC PAC + P'loss
Standard PV inverters are often lacking the
functionality to supply reactive power. However, from a depending on the active power output of the AC side PAC
technical point of view they are capable to provide this and the active power input on the DC side PDC. The
service. The functionality is required rarely because difference between PDC and PAC are the losses P’loss of the
owners of PV generators often do not get incentives for inverter.
providing reactive power supply. Before analysing the The losses of an inverter can be approximated by a
benefits in the next section, this section analyses the second polynomial function [2]:
costs of this functionality.
Costs for reactive power supply can be separated into P'loss (PAC ) = c self + cVloss ⋅ PAC + c Rloss ⋅ (PAC )
2

additional investment costs as well as additional

operational costs.
with self losses (standby losses) cself, voltage dependent
losses over the power electronic components cVloss
4.1 Additional investment costs
(proportional to I), and current dependent losses over the
The provision of reactive power might require
impedances cRloss (proportional to I2).
changes of the inverter’s topology or its dimensioning for
an optimised layout using the new functionality. In this
4.3 Additional losses
paper, the option of oversizing the inverter is not
The focus has been on active power so far. Extending
considered because 100% availability is not a must and
the scope to reactive power supply requires an analysis if
causing significant additional costs. The available
this approximation is still valid. To investigate this by
reactive power potential should be used as a starting
example an inverter has been measured at ISET’s
point with as low costs as possible.
laboratories with different power factors PF. Figure 2
Without reactive power full load hours of 900 h/a are
shows the inverter’s losses Ploss over the inverter’s
achieved in average in Germany. However, additional
apparent power output S.
reactive power supply may increase the loading of the
inverter significantly. This additional loading might
0.08
reduce the life time of the DC link capacitors of single- PF=1
phase inverters. This effect is considered as negligible PF=0.8
due to two reasons. Firstly, the use of reactive power will 0.06 PF=0.6
PF=0.4
be limited presently to full load hours in the order of
Ploss/kW

1000 h/a due to economic reasons as presented later on. 0.04

Secondly, PV inverters should have a life time of at least
20 years. Even if a reduction of life time occurs this has
0.02
little impact on the annuity of investment costs due to the
discounting over such long time spans. Three-phase
inverters have by far smaller DC link capacitors which 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
results in even smaller additional costs than for single- S/kVA
phase inverters. For these reasons the presented paper
neglects additional investment costs. Figure 2: Measurement of inverter losses Ploss over the
Additional investment costs have to be considered if apparent power output S with different power factors PF
the inverter’s rated capacity is extended for higher for one exemplary 3.3 kVA inverter
 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy

Based on these results the inverter losses can be
assumed independent from the power factor and PAC can
be substituted by S with only small errors. This leads to
the polynomial approximation of the losses proposed in
the presented paper:
Ploss (S ) = cself + cVloss ⋅ S + c Rloss ⋅ (S )
2
The graph is limited by the semicircle of the device’s
nominal apparent power and shows the symmetry of
negative and positive reactive power supply. Three areas
can be distinguished:
1. PAC = 0, Q = 0: The inverter is deactivated if no
power is supplied:

ΔPloss (t ) = 0
According to a set of datasheets of different inverters
(not representative) an efficiency curve has been derived 2. PAC > 0, Q ≠ 0: With increasing reactive power
as an example for a PV inverter of the year 2005 (with a supply the additional losses increase with a
maximum efficiency etamax of 95.6% and a European second order polynomial function:
efficiency etaEuro of 94.7%). Further improvements of PV ΔPloss (t ) =
inverter efficiencies are assumed for the year 2015 c self + cVloss ⋅ PAC
2
(t ) + Q 2 (t )
(etamax = 98.1% and etaEuro = 97.7%) and 2030 (etamax =
99.1% and etaEuro = 98.7%). These three inverter (
+ c Rloss ⋅ PAC
2
(t ) + Q 2 (t ) )
efficiency curves are displayed in Figure 3 and should
show a trend of future improvements.
(
− c self + cVloss ⋅ PAC (t *) + c Rloss ⋅ PAC
2
)
(t *)
100% 3. PAC = 0, Q ≠ 0: Without active power supply
98%
the inverter would be deactivated. Hence, the
standby losses cself have to be attributed to the
96% reactive power supply in contrast to the situation
with P > 0:
Efficiency

94%
2005
ΔPloss (t ) = c self + cVloss ⋅ Q(t ) +c Rloss ⋅ Q 2 (t )
92% 2015
2030
90% These additional losses can be attributed to the
88%
reactive power supply to get the related value in
kW/kVAr:
86%

ΔPloss (t )
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Apparent Power (%Smax) Ploss (t ) =
Q(t )
Figure 3: Example inverter efficiency curves for the
years 2005, 2015 and 2030 At this stage it is helpful to distinguish two cases:
With these basic assumptions of the proposed 1. Daytime (P > 0): Active power is provided by
approach we can now calculate the additional losses by the PV generator. In addition reactive power is
taking the difference of the inverter’s losses with reactive supplied. Only additional losses are attributed
power supply Q(t) ≠ 0 and without Q(t*) = 0 for the same to reactive power supply. The related
DC link power PDC at time t as well as reference time t*: additional losses are displayed in Figure 5
showing
ΔPloss (t ) = • the decline of additional losses of a
Ploss (PDC (t ), Q(t )) − Ploss (PDC (t *) = PDC (t ), Q(t *) = 0 ) certain reactive power supply with
increasing active power supply and
With the loss curve of 2005 this leads to the • an increase of additional losses with
additional losses caused by reactive power supply as increasing reactive power supply.
displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Additional inverter losses of a 100 kVA PV Figure 5: Related additional inverter losses [W/kVAr]
inverter due to reactive power supply Q with different due to reactive power supply Q [%Smax] during active
active power output P (assumed inverter performance of power supply P [%Smax] at Daytime (assumed inverter
the year 2005) performance of the year 2005)
 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy

2. Nighttime (P = 0): The PV generator would be
deactivated if only active power needs to be
considered. All losses have to be attributed to
reactive power supply. The related additional
losses are displayed in Figure 6 showing very
high losses for small quantities of reactive
power supply due to the attributed standby
losses. These are then reduced with increasing
reactive power supply passing a point of
minimum related additional losses.
• Estimated costs (if active power supply P>0) of
active power generation by PV generators in
Germany (cf. [6]):
2005: 50 c€2005/kWhPV,
2015: 30 c€2005/kWhPV, and
2030: 15 c€2005/kWhPV
Table II: Costs of reactive power supply in c€2005/kVArh
for different P/Q set points over the assumed years 2005,
2015 and 2030 considering a PV inverter of 100 kVA

Year 2005: etamax = 95.6% and etaEuro = 94.7%

P=0: 10(20) c€2005/kWhPV
P>0: 50 c€2005/kWhPV
Reactive power supply costs [c€2005/kVArh]
Q P = 0 kW P = 30 kW P = 60 kW
10 kVAr 0.93 (1.87) 0.29 0.21
30 kVAr 0.51 (1.01) 0.79 0.63
50 kVAr 0.47 (0.93) 1.21 1.03
70 kVAr 0.48 (0.96) 1.58 1.40

Year 2015: etamax = 98.1% and etaEuro = 97.7%

P=0: 10(20) c€2005/kWhPV
P>0: 30 c€2005/kWhPV
Reactive power supply costs [c€2005/kVArh]
Q P = 0 kW P = 30 kW P = 60 kW
Figure 6: Related additional inverter losses [W/kVAr] 10 kVAr 0.32 (0.64) 0.09 0.07
due to reactive power supply Q [%Smax] at Nighttime 30 kVAr 0.20 (0.39) 0.25 0.21
(assumed inverter performance of the year 2005) 50 kVAr 0.20 (0.41) 0.39 0.35
70 kVAr 0.23 (0.45) 0.52 0.48
These additional related losses for reactive power are
the basis for the following cost calculation. Year 2030: etamax = 99.1% and etaEuro = 98.7%
P=0: 10(20) c€2005/kWhPV
P>0: 15 c€2005/kWhPV
4.4 Additional costs
Reactive power supply costs [c€2005/kVArh]
With a first approach the two cases (Daytime and
Q P = 0 kW P = 30 kW P = 60 kW
Nighttime) are considered separately for estimating the
10 kVAr 0.12 (0.25) 0.03 0.03
additional costs of reactive power supply:
30 kVAr 0.10 (0.20) 0.09 0.08
1. During Daytime the inverter feeds active power 50 kVAr 0.12 (0.25) 0.15 0.14
that is generated by the PV modules into the 70 kVAr 0.15 (0.30) 0.20 0.19
grid. The additional losses accompanying the
reactive power supply reduce this active power The table shows the resulting costs of reactive power
injection. Hence, the costs of the additional supply for various P/Q set points of PV inverters which
losses are the opportunity costs due to reduced can be compared with the benefits which are assessed in
active power supply. the next section. An important trend can be derived
2. During Nighttime the PV modules do not directly from this table: The costs decrease significantly
provide any active power. The inverter losses with the assumption of better inverter efficiencies and
due to reactive power supply are then lower power supply costs of PV generators. While the
compensated by the external grid (here: mains) costs are within 0.21-1.87 c€2005/kVArhPV in the year
resulting in costs due to the tariff of active 2005, they are within 0.07-0.64 c€2005/kVArhPV in 2015
power purchase. and 0.03-0.30 c€2005/kVArhPV in 2030. This corresponds
This distinction is necessary as long as there are to a cost reduction of reactive power supply by 85% from
differences of the value of active power supply and 2005 to 2030 while the active power generation costs of
purchase. With feed-in-tariffs (e.g. in Germany and PV generators are reduced by 70%. In other words: we
Spain) the difference of value is considerable, without it will see a faster cost reduction for reactive power supply
might be negligible. than for active power supply.
The reactive power cost estimations in Table II are
based on three values which should be considered as
examples: 5 COST-BENEFIT-ANALYSIS OF REACTIVE
• 10 c€2005/kWhPV (if active power supply P=0): POWER SUPPLY BY PV INVERTERS
Assumed costs of active power purchase for
commercials/industries in Germany (cf. [4]) for Up to now the reactive power supply capability of
the years 2005, 2015 and 2030 PV inverters is not yet used for supporting the network
• 20 c€2005/kWhPV (if active power supply P=0): operation. The benefits can be assessed by looking at
Estimated costs of active power purchase for alternative sources of reactive power which are presently
households in Germany (cf. [5]) for the years used. If PV inverters have lower costs for this ancillary
2005, 2015 and 2030 service they can substitute the conventional technologies.
 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy
Their benefit can be assumed to be as high as the costs of
the substitutable reactive power sources. This section
provides a comparison with capacitors, network
purchase, and an analysis of the benefits of reactive
power based ancillary services.
5.1 Comparison with Capacitor Banks
A standard network component to compensate
reactive power is a capacitor bank. They are often
applied in industrial facilities and at certain network
nodes. Capacitors are normally sufficient because in most
of the network’s situations the load has an inductive
character mainly due to transformers and induction
generators. The analysis of costs of capacitor banks for
industrial facilities results in the kVArh prices displayed
in Figure 7. They depend on the used full load hours on a
diminishing scale. The cost estimation is based on the
following assumptions: 20 years lifetime, 5% discount
rate, 15% additional installation costs, losses of
1.5 W/kVAr [7] and power purchase costs of
10 c€2005/kWh for an industrial facility (close to [4]). The
figure shows that with higher full load hours the costs
decrease below 0.2 c€2005/kVArh.
Costs of Capacitors [c€/kVArh]
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2000 4000
Full load hours [h/a]
Figure 7: Cost of capacitors (in c€2005/kVArh) over the
used full load hours (in h/a)
A comparison between the costs of capacitors and the
costs of PV inverters shows that capacitors have very low
costs supplying reactive power continuously. If reactive
power is necessary only for some hundred hours per year
PV inverters can compete with capacitor banks even
today. The expected cost reductions over the next
decades for reactive power from PV inverters result in an
increasing competitiveness also for larger amount of full
load hours. PV inverters are able to substitute capacitor
banks in the future starting with supplying the peaks of
reactive power demand in the short-term future and
continuing in the long-term future possibly even for
continuous services.
An important feature of reactive power supply by PV
inverters is their possibility to follow smoothly the
demand. This is an important advantage compared to
capacitor banks which switch discretely resulting in
suboptimal compensation and transient voltage
disturbances.
5.2 Comparison with Network Purchase
German distribution network operators charge in
average 1.1 c€2005/kVArh (0.0-2.7 c€2005/kVArh) if the
power factor is lower than 0.9 (in average) [8]. However,
this charge is more a penalty than the real costs which
should be lower. Compared to this penalty even today
reactive power supply by PV inverters would cost less in
most cases, further improving in the long-term future.
In Spain an incentive system according to [9] defines
three load situations (peak, plateau, and off-peak). If
generating units provide the corresponding power factors
they receive an incentive if they counteract they have to
pay a penalty. This incentive is attractive for PV plant
operators, particularly, because the power generation
costs of PV are far less than in Germany. As the
incentive is paid per kWh it cannot be compared
reasonably here.
5.3 Comparison with Benefits for Network Operation
Reactive power is necessary for an optimized
network operation. Capacitive reactive power increases
the voltage level while inductive reactive power
decreases the voltage level. However, the voltage needs
to stay within certain limits demanding for distributed
reactive power compensation. Reactive power is used in
network operation mainly for three ancillary services:
1. voltage control,
2. reduction of grid losses, and
3. reduction of congestions.
The value of these services is analyzed in the following
10 kVAr sub-sections.
30 kVAr
50 kVAr 5.3.1 Voltage Control
70 kVAr Voltage control is a basic need for network operation
because the voltage has to stay within certain limits
throughout the whole network (cf. EN50160). Different
reaction times are used to optimize the voltage in the
network: primary, secondary and tertiary voltage control
during normal operation, as well as grid design in the
installation phase (especially of distribution networks),
6000 8000 and transient voltage control to reduce transient voltage
changes, e.g. during faults. The overload capability
displayed in Figure 1 may be used for transient reactive
power supply.
The inductive coupling in transmission networks and
resistive coupling in low voltage networks leads to
different characteristics of voltage control. In a first
approximation the R/X ratio defines the P/Q ratio of the
influence of active and reactive power on the voltage
drop over the network impedances. In low voltage
networks the ratio is normally by far larger than one (e.g.
7.7 according to [10]) and in high voltage networks
smaller than one (e.g. 0.31 according to [10]). Hence,
compared to the influence of active power on the
network’s voltage, reactive power control has smaller
influence in low voltage networks while it has larger
influence in high voltage networks. In medium voltage
networks the influence is in the same order.
PV inverters can be integrated in primary, secondary and
tertiary voltage control during normal network operation.
Here they have to be compared to standard network
components providing this service: tap-changing
transformers, capacitors and synchronous generators. The
competitiveness of PV inverters in comparison to
capacitors has been studied in section 5.1.
The grid design might have caused a restriction of
additional PV generator installations due to voltage
limits. In Germany, for instance, the voltage is not
allowed to rise more than 2% at the point of common
coupling due to the PV installation in the distribution
network [11] [12]. This is a connection condition which
could be complied by using reactive power control of the
 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy
respective PV generator. An example is presented in
[13]. The benefit results from the possibility to operate a
bigger PV generator if reactive power control is
implemented.
Transient voltage control happens in milliseconds.
This is a possible service for PV generators due to the
very fast reaction times of their inverters and their
distribution throughout the network which supports the
voltage very effectively during faults (cf. fault-ride-
through requirements for wind turbines). The general
benefit is difficult to assess but might be bigger than the
costs of providing reactive power for few seconds.
5.3.2 Reduction of Grid Losses
The transfer of reactive power causes losses in the
network. Reactive power compensation reduces these
losses. In addition more network capacity can be used for
active power transfer. Table III provides a simplified
assessment of loss savings due to reactive power
compensation in different network situations (load power
factor and network losses). In this calculation a quadratic
correlation between losses and power flow is assumed,
and the costs of network loss compensation are estimated
to be 6 c€2005/kWh. The value of reactive power
compensation to reduce losses is consequently lower than
0.3 c€2005/kVArh. Presently, this is normally not higher
than the costs of reactive power supply by PV inverters
(cf. Table II). However, in the short-term future it
becomes economically attractive, particularly with
consideration of an increased active power flow capacity.
Table III: Loss savings in c€2005/kVArh due to reactive
power compensation with different load power factors
cos(phi) and average network losses with costs for losses
of 6 c€2005/kWh
Network Losses
cos(phi) 2% 4% 6% 8%
0.95 0.039 0.079 0.118 0.158
0.9 0.058 0.116 0.174 0.232
0.85 0.074 0.149 0.223 0.297
5.3.3 Reduction of Congestions
By active compensation of reactive power it is
possible to reduce the reactive power flows in the
network. Particularly at peak load situations this can
reduce the loading of the network helping to avoid
congestions. Figure 8 displays the relative reduction of
the loading of the considered network element (e.g. line
or transformer) by reactive power compensation. The
network element is assumed to operate at 100% rated
capacity Sn considering different load power factors
cos(phi). In these situations the reactive power flow is
compensated by PV inverters with 100% of their rated
capacity. Their penetration Ppv is assumed to be 5%,
10% and 20% of the rated capacity Sn.
Figure 8 shows that the loading can be reduced by
15% (cos(phi)=0.98), 30% (cos(phi)=0.94) or 45%
(cos(phi)=0.87) of the inverter’s capacity at a penetration
level of 10%. This reduction is significant. If the range of
15-45% is taken and the network costs are assumed to be
50-150 €2005/kWa the benefit can be calculated as 7.5-
67.5 €2005/kVAPV. Relating this benefit to some hours of
reactive power compensation, say 10-30 hours/year, the
value becomes 0.25-6.75 €2005/kVArhPV.
This benefit is higher than the costs of optimised
reactive power compensation by PV generators today and
much more in the future. It has to be stated, that few
networks really operate at 100% capacity. Hence, the
described congestion management does not have any
benefit. However, in the future with an active and
optimised network operation and design, the reactive
power compensation capability of distributed inverters
can be applied effectively for using the network
infrastructure at higher loading levels. The capacity of
PV inverters for reactive power supply at peak load is
approximately at rated power because peak load
normally happens on winter evenings in Europe (an
exception is Greece) when the PV modules do not get
enough sunlight to generate active power [14].
60%
Relative Reduction of Loading by
50%
Ppv = 5%Sn
Reactive Power Supply
Ppv = 10%Sn
40%
Ppv = 20%Sn
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.85
cos(phi)
Figure 8: Relative Reduction of Loading due to reactive
power compensation by PV inverters considering
different PV penetration levels PPV and different load
power factors cos(phi)
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduces in a first step the capabilities
and availabilities of reactive power supply of PV
inverters showing an interesting potential. In a second
step this potential is studied concerning its economic
usability. This is done with a proposed approach of
allocating additional costs to reactive power supply and
assessing the benefits for network operation. The cost-
benefit-analysis shows that PV inverters already have
some opportunities at present but many more in the
future with further generation cost reductions and
improvements of the inverter’s efficiency. Even today
PV inverters are in some cases cheaper than capacitors
and cheaper than the reactive power purchase costs by
the network operator in Germany and incentives paid in
Spain. Moreover, in the future an active distribution
network management allows using the reactive power
supply of PV inverters economically for reducing
network losses and congestions.
The paper presents an economic potential of using
reactive power supplied by PV inverter for network
operation. Particularly in the future this becomes more
and more interesting. This potential should be used to
optimize the quality, economy and security of
distribution network operation.
The integration of distributed reactive power supply
by PV inverters requires further analysis of the economic
 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 3 - 7 September 2007, Milan, Italy

benefits, particularly when looking at the trade-off

between using reactive power for voltage control and
reducing reactive power flows for reductions of grid
losses and network congestions.
Further on, regulatory issues have to be analysed.
Regulation schemes should be developed giving
reasonable incentives to operators of PV generators for
providing a benefit for the network operators by using
their reactive power control capabilities. These schemes
should lead to a win-win-situation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The presented study was partly funded by the Federal

Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety in the framework of the German project
“Multifunktionale Photovoltaik-Stromrichter –
Optimierung von Industrienetzen und öffentlichen
Netzen” (FKZ 0329943, see http://www.multi-pv.de).
The author thanks the Ministry for the support.
Furthermore, the author thanks Jörg Jahn for valuable
discussions and his Matlab support as well as Antonio
Notholt-Vergara for the measurement data.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Braun: “Technological Control Capabilities of

DER to Provide Future Ancillary Services”,
International Journal of Distributed Energy
Resources, Vol. 3, Number 3, pp 191-206, 2007.
[2] H. Schmidt, D.U. Sauer: „Wechselrichter-
Wirkungsgrade“, Sonnenenergie 4, 43-47, 1996.
[3] IEC 61683: „Photovoltaic systems – Power
conditioners – Procedure for measuring
efficiency“, 1999
[4] A. Richmann: “Impulse für mehr Wettbewerb in
der Energiewirtschaft”, Presentation on
Energiesymposium der Industrie- und
Handelskammer, Dortmund, 21 November 2006.
[5] VDN: „Daten und Fakten Stromnetze in
Deutschland 2007“, 2007.
[6] BMU: “Mindestvergütungssätze nach dem neuen
Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG)”, 21 July
2004.
[7] R. Hänßler, P. Knoll, J.Stein: „Energieeffizienz-
Steigerung durch Blindleistungskompensation“,
ZVEI (Zentralverband Elektrotechnik und
Elektronikindustrie) e.V., March 2006
[8] ENE’T: “Datenbank Netznutzungsentgelte”,
database, status: April 2007
[9] Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio:
„Real Decreto 661/2007“, Spain, 25 May 2007
[10] A. Engler: „Applicability of Droops in Low
Voltage Grids“, International Journal of Distributed
Energy Resources, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005, pp 3-16
[11] VDEW: „Eigenerzeugungsanlagen am
Mittelspannungsnetz“, 2nd edition, 1998
[12] VDW,VDN: „Eigenerzeugungsanlagen am
Niederspannungsnetz“, 4th edition, 2001
[13] C. Nietsch, C. Schwaegerl, P. Kremer:
„Netzverträglichkeit von PV-Kraftwerken“, 22.
Symposium Photovoltaische Solarenergie, Bad
Staffelstein, 6/7 March 2007
[14] REE: “2005 El Sistema Eléctrico Español”, 30
June 2006

View publication stats