Reactive Power Supplied by Wind Energy Converters Cost-Benefit-Analysis

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 use of reactive power control. The distributed supply of reactive power by Wind Energy Converters (WECs) is an option to support network operation. Presently, WEC have to fulfil grid code requirements for reactive power (e.g. Germany [1,2] or Spain [3]). This paper analyses the costs and the benefits of this service to provide more insights into its economics which allows designing improved economic frameworks with regard to reactive power supply. Firstly, it describes the capability and availability of reactive power supply by WECs. Secondly, the costs are assessed, and, finally, a cost-benefit-analysis shows the economic attractiveness of this ancillary service by WECs.

Abstract:
This paper provides a cost-benefit-assessment of reactive power supplied to network operators by Wind Energy Converters (WECs). An approach is proposed to estimate the costs of reactive power supply by WECs with inverter-coupled generators. A cost-benefit-analysis shows the economic attractiveness of reactive power supply in many cases, but also significantly varying costs. An economic optimisation of both, the WECs and the networks operation, must consider these cost variations. Keywords: Ancillary Services, Economic Analysis, Inverter Losses, Reactive Power, Wind Energy Converter

2 Reactive Power Supply Capability of WECs

In principle all generators which are coupled to the network either with inverters or with synchronous generators are capable of providing reactive power [4]. Principal WEC designs [5] are directly-coupled induction generators (IGs) in fixed speed or variable slip design with capacitor banks; doubly-fed induction generators (DFIGs) with a power electronics converter between the point of grid connection and the rotor circuit of the IG (designed only with a fraction of the rated power); directly-coupled synchronous generators (SGs) with a dynamic gearbox and excitation control; and inverter-coupled generators with a full power electronics converter (FC) which couples different designs of induction and synchronous generators.

1 Introduction
In standard Alternating Current (AC) electrical networks the voltage and current pulsate with the networks frequency (in Europe: 50 Hz). Due to a phase shift between voltage and current two different types of power are distinguished: active power for the useful work and reactive power which oscillates between electrical storage elements (capacitors and reactors). Many loads and generators as well as the passive network elements have a certain reactive power characteristic. Different types of compensating units can be installed to compensate reactive power flows in the network. This goes alongside with the objectives of network operators who have to control the grids voltage within allowed limits (e.g. EN50160). Furthermore, network operators aim at reducing grid losses and congestions by

IGs are not considered further on because their control capabilities are limited compared to the requirements of network operation and their capacitors can be regarded as additional passive network elements (see section 4.1.1). Also SGs with little installation rates are not considered in detail. However, the approach for FCs is transferable to SGs. The focus of this paper is on the two market-dominating power electronic designs: DFIG and FC with a market share of 50% and 42% respectively (rest: IG) in Germany [6].

2.1 Inverter-Coupled Generators (FC)

Reactive power occurs only in AC networks due to a phase shift between voltage and current. In DC networks it is not defined. Consequently, only the grid-side inverter of the power electronic back-toback converter needs to be considered as it defines the phase angle of the current to the mains grid. One fundamental limit is the maximum current transfer of the inverter or the maximum apparent power Smax. The phase angle of the current vector can be arbitrarily controlled as long as the absolute value of the current does not exceed its maximum. The active power transfer Pact is generally handled by the operational control of the WEC with first priority so that it limits the maximal possible reactive power supply Qmax according to
2 2 Q max (t) = S max Pact (t ) .

capacitive reactive power limit Qmax (blue, right-hand side), and apparent power limit Smax (green) the reactive current of the inverter can be controlled arbitrarily with response times in the order of milliseconds. While the solid blue line in Figure 1 shows often published reactive power limits even more is possible as displayed by the dashed blue line. Also reactive power can be supplied if no active power is transferred [8,9]. An extension of the solid to the dashed blue line, given by equation 1, depends on the power electronic design. The availability is then dependent on the actual active power transfer so that not 100% availability can be stated but less. As an exemplary database (source: ISET), the measurements of an Enercon E-66 WEC (with Pmax = 1300 kW) in Germany are analysed. For each five minute interval, the maximum active power is measured in the years 2001-2003. The maximum reactive power Qmax is calculated with equation 1 for different inverter sizes Smax. This leads to the availability of a certain reactive power Q as displayed in Table 1 showing the influence of oversizing the inverter. With Smax = 1400 kVA = 1.077 Pmax it is possible to guarantee 520 kVAr and with Smax = 1500 kVA = 1.154 Pmax even 748 kVAr for the full active power operation range. More reactive power can be supplied but the availability is less than 100% but still more than 90% up to 1000 kVAr.
Q kVAr 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Availability of Q with Smax = Smax = Smax = 1300 kVA 1400 kVA 1500 kVA >99% 100% 100% >99% 100% 100% >99% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 95% >99% 100% 94% 98% 100% 94% 95% >99% 93% 94% 97% 92% 93% 94% 89% 92% 94% 84% 90% 93% 5% 85% 90% 0% 5% 86% 0% 0% 5%

(1)

However, also the reactive current faces limits mostly due to reasons of stability and availability. Figure 1 presents an example of the loading capability chart (power domain) of a FC which transfers active power and supplies reactive power (practical values see [7]).

Table 1: Available reactive power Q of an Enercon E-66 WEC (with Pmax = 1300 kW) in Germany with different inverter sizing Smax Figure 1: Loading capability chart of a FC (Q > 0: capacitive) Within the active power generation limits Pmin and Pmax (red), inductive reactive power limit Qmin (blue, left-hand side), Also certain overload capabilities for short-term reactive power supply exist, e.g. for fault-ride through support. In contrast, active power has no overload flexibility if not throttled because it is directly linked with the maximum mechanical power due to the wind conditions. However, the possibilities from these overload capabilities are not discussed further in this paper.

2.2 Doubly-Fed Induction Generators (DFIG)

A DFIG is an IG whose rotor windings are coupled by a power electronic converter to the grid. This design allows an excitation in the rotor coils for speed regulation and reactive power control of the IG by the rotor-side inverter as well as reactive power supply by the grid-side inverter. Three limits define the reactive power capacity of a DFIG [10]: stator current (heating of stator coils) Smax (green), Qmin (blue, left-hand side), rotor current (heating of rotor coils) Qmax (blue, right-hand side), and rotor voltage (limiting the rotor speed). The rotor voltage can be a limit at high slip s, reducing Qmax further on. Figure 2 shows the loading capability chart at s = 0. At lower slip the defining circles are extended in direction of the P axes (and compressed at higher slip). A detailed discussion on the functional dependencies provides Lund et al. in [10].

3.1 Investment costs

In principle, grid-side inverters can control reactive power without the need of additional investments due to the described power electronic functionalities. However, additional investment costs have to be considered if the inverters rated capacity is extended for higher capabilities and availabilities of reactive power supply. Inverters are generally oversized by WEC manufacturers to comply grid code requirements. Assuming inverter costs of 150-300 /kVA leads to additional investment costs as listed in Table 2 and depicted in Figure 3. Also the annual costs are given in Table 2 with a lifetime of 20 years and 5% discount rate. If 0.5 MVAr should be available from a WEC with FC of 1 MW it has to be oversized by 12%. This oversizing generates investment costs of 36-71 /kVAr. A general finding is that the additional investment costs are low at small secured reactive power capacities. Other ways of assessing capacity costs are discussed in [11,22].
Q [MVAr] 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Additional Costs [/kVAr] 8-15 15-30 22-44 29-58 36-71 Annual Costs (20 a, 5%) [/kVAra] 0.6-1.2 1.2-2.4 1.8-3.5 2.4-4.7 2.9-5.7

Table 2: Additional investment costs for secured reactive power supply Q of a 1 MW WEC with inverter costs of 150-300 /MVA Figure 2: Loading capability chart of a DFIG (Q > 0: capacitive)

3 Costs of Reactive Power Supply by WECs

Costs for reactive power supply can be separated into investment costs [/kVAr] and operational costs [c/kVArh]. Both costs are very specific and show large ranges. The purpose here is to give an order of magnitude and an understanding of the various dependencies. Hence, additional minor cost factors are not discussed in detail. They tend to be dependent on the higher currents (often with I) causing electromagnetic forces (mechanical stress) and higher temperatures (thermal stress). These effects result in higher maintenance costs and equipment aging as well as higher costs of unavailability. Due to their I-dependency these additional minor costs might be added to the operational costs (see section 3.2). The following analysis of investment and operational costs focuses on WECs with FC. It is possible to transfer this approach to DFIG and SG.

Figure 3: Additional investment costs for secured reactive power supply capacity

3.2 Operational Costs

WECs have low variable operational costs [/MWh] because no primary energy costs have to be paid for the wind. However, similar to all other power plants they have a certain self consumption. The additional self consumption due to reactive power supply corresponds to the additional losses of the grid-side inverter. The following operational cost estimation approach has been introduced in [12] for photovoltaic inverters. It is further developed, adjusted and applied to determine the costs of reactive power

supply by WECs. It can be divided into two main steps: 1) Reactive power supply in addition to active power supply increases the losses of the gridside inverter of WECs. 2) These additional losses need to be compensated by active power a. by reducing the amount of active power generation resulting in operational opportunity costs, or b. by network purchase if no active power is fed into the mains (at low wind conditions). The determination of the self consumption of inverters starts with the available data on the inverters efficiency
eta = PAC PAC = PDC PAC + P'loss

the maximal apparent power Smax for further generalisation. We can then calculate the additional losses Ploss by taking the difference of the inverters losses with reactive power supply Q(t) 0 and without Q(t*) = 0 for the same DC link power PDC at time t and at reference time t* respectively:

Ploss (t ) =

Ploss (PDC (t *) = PDC (t ), Q(t *) = 0 )

These additional losses can be attributed to the reactive power supply to get the related value in kW/kVAr (or kWh/kVArh in energy units):

Ploss (PDC (t ), Q(t ) 0 )

(4)

(2)

Ploss (t ) =

Ploss (t ) Q(t )

depending on the active power output PAC on the AC side and the active power input PDC on the DC side. The difference between PDC and PAC define the losses Ploss of the inverter. The losses of an inverter can be approximated by a second-order polynomial function of the apparent power supply S [12]

(5)

Ploss (S ) = cself + cVloss S + c Rloss (S )

(3)

With the loss curve of Figure 4 this leads to the related additional losses caused by reactive power supply as displayed in Figure 5. The graph is limited by the semicircle of the devices maximal apparent power Smax and the maximal active power Pmax. It shows the symmetry of negative and positive reactive power supply. These additional related active power losses for reactive power are the basis for the following cost calculation.

with self losses (standby losses) cself, voltage dependent losses over the power electronic components cVloss (proportional to I), and current dependent losses over the impedances cRloss (proportional to I2). An exemplary efficiency curve and the corresponding loss curve are used for the following calculations (Figure 4).
100% 98% Efficiency 96% 94% 92% 90% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Apparent Power (%Smax) 0 2 3 Losses [%Smax]

Figure 5: Losses due to reactive power supply Q with different active power transfer P (Smax = 1.1Pmax and step size = 5%Pmax) Two cases assessment: are distinguished for the cost

Figure 4: Efficiency (red) and losses (blue) of an exemplary grid-side inverter of a WEC The considered grid-side inverter has a maximal efficiency etamax = 98%. The values of active power losses and apparent power are given in percent of

Active WEC (P > 0): Active power generated by the wind turbine is fed into the mains grid. In addition reactive power is supplied. The additional losses accompanying the reactive power supply reduce the active power injection. Hence, the costs of the additional losses are the opportunity costs due to reduced active power supply. Active power production by WECs is site-dependent and can vary considerably. Average costs of active power generation by WECs in Germany can be estimated as 9 c/kWh [13,14] within the range of the feed-in tariffs of 4-

9 c/kWh for the years 2005-2015 [15]. Inactive WEC (P = 0): According to the measurement database (Table 1) the WEC did not generate active power in 5% of the 5 minutes intervals. The inverters losses are then compensated by the external grid (here: mains) resulting in costs due to the tariff of active power purchase. These costs of active power purchase vary with regard to voltage level, energy supplier and consumption profile. Here we consider costs of 9 c/kWh [16]. With the given assumptions the operational costs of reactive power supply by WECs can be classified in cost ranges as given in Figure 6 showing an increase of the costs with increasing reactive power supply; and a decline of the costs of a certain reactive power supply with increasing active power supply. These functional dependencies lead to the general finding that the operational costs are the lowest at low levels of reactive power supply. This goes alongside with the finding in section 3.1: Reactive power should be preferably delivered by many WECs instead of few ones.

studying the benefits for network operation. This section provides a comparison with conventional reactive power supply technologies, network purchase, and an analysis of the benefits of reactive power based ancillary services for network operation.

4.1 Comparison with Conventional Reactive Power Supply Technologies

The following conventional devices for reactive power supply are looked at: 1. static capacitors and reactors; 2. static compensators with power electronics; 3. synchronous condensers; and 4. synchronous generators of conventional power plants. 4.1.1 Static Capacitors and Reactors A standard network component for reactive power compensation is a capacitor bank. The analysis of costs of capacitor banks results in the kVArh prices displayed in Figure 7. They depend on the used full load hours: few full load hours cause high 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 Costs of Q [c/kVArh] Capacitor Banks 0.10 WEC: 0.03 - 0.10 c/kVArh

0.05

Figure 6: Ranges of operational cost of reactive power supply by WECs (Smax = 1.1Pmax and step size = 1%Pmax) These costs are compared to the benefits of reactive power supply and costs of alternative supply technologies in the following section.

0.00 0 2000

WEC: < 0.03 c/kVArh 4000 6000 Full Load Hours [h/a] 8000

Figure 7: Cost of capacitors (in c/kVArh) over the used full load hours (in h/a) in comparison to the cost ranges of WECs The comparison in Figure 7 shows that reactive power supply by WECs in the low cost range of < 0.03 c/kVArh (approx. |Q| < 15%Pmax) is cheaper than capacitors in general. Considering the middle cost range of 0.03 0.10 c/kVArh (approx. 15%Pmax < |Q| < 50%Pmax) WECs are cheaper than capacitors if only used for few 1000 full load hours per year. Taken these insights together it can be stated that reactive power supply

4 Cost-Benefit-Analysis
The benefits of reactive power supply by WECs can be assessed by looking at alternative sources of reactive power which are presently used. If WECs have lower costs they can economically substitute the conventional technologies. Another approach is the analysis of the network effects by

by WECs can be beneficiary compared to reactive power supply by capacitor banks at the same network node (without additional network losses) and without taking into account additional investment costs assuming that no 100% availability is necessary. This conclusion is also valid for static reactors which tend to be some tens of percent more expensive than capacitors. If reactors as well as capacitors have to be installed at one node WECs having the full range are even more attractive. As discussed in section 3.1 it is necessary to consider the additional investment costs if 100% availability of Q is required. A comparison with Table 2 and Figure 3 shows that guaranteeing 1020% of the reactive power capacity already results in investment costs in the order of those of capacitors. However, if reactors have to be installed as well up to 40% of Qmax can be guaranteed. Including investment costs it becomes more difficult for WECs to be competitive. However, with higher inverter efficiencies and decreasing inverter costs this situation might improve in the future. The comparison with static capacitors and reactors might be not reasonable in all cases. An important feature of reactive power supply by WECs 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. In many cases a comparison to static compensators with power electronics of similar functionalities should be preferred. 4.1.2 Static Compensators with Power Electronics Different types of static compensators with power electronics are available. Static VAR Compensators (SVCs) are capacitors and/or reactors connected by thyristors (grid-commuting). Static Compensators (STATCOMs) are power electronics-based (self-commuting) with gate turnoff thyristors (GTOs) or insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) comparable to those of inverter-coupled WECs. Kueck et al. [18] estimate the investment costs in the range of 40-100 US$/kVAr which is assumed to be in the range of 30-75 /kVAr. This cost range corresponds to costs for oversizing the inverter of a WEC in order to have up to 100% of the reactive power capacity secured available (cf. Table 2 and Figure 3). The energy losses depending on the efficiency of STATCOMs and grid-side inverters of WECs are similar due to similar power electronic designs. Figure 8 shows that STATCOMs tend to have higher operational costs because all losses would be attributed to Q (blue line) while only the additional losses are attributed to Q in case of WECs (red area) because P is transferred as well. If designed properly WECs can be competitive in

supplying Q in comparison to conventional power electronic based compensators.

Figure 8: Operational cost (in c/kVArh) of Q supply by inverters which only supply Q (blue) and WECs which supply Q in addition to P (red) (Smax = 1Pmax and step size = 2%Pmax) 4.1.3 Synchronous Condensers Synchronous condensers are synchronous generators without prime mover. They are devices dedicated for reactive power supply. Because of this dedication all costs are attributed to reactive power supply. Figure 8 can also be referenced with regard to operational costs. In contrast, the investment costs are approx. one order of magnitude lower than those of inverters of WECs [18]. Nevertheless, at low Q capacities (see Figure 3) WECs can be competitive at the same network node, also because of low efficiencies of synchronous condensers. 4.1.4 Synchronous Generators of Conventional Power Plants Conventionally also central power plants are used for reactive power supply in the transmission network. The efficiency of their synchronous generators can be assumed to be similar to the efficiency of the grid-side inverter of WECs. One important difference is that they generally sell their power generation on the power exchange with average prices, for instance, of 2.9 (2004), 4.6 (2005) and 5.1 c/kWh (2006) on the European Energy Exchange (EEX). They are with 4.2 c/kWh (average 2004-2006) considerably lower than the feed-in tariff prices in Germany of 9 c/kWh (see section 3.2). A second difference to WECs is that conventional power plants normally operate at rated power and not with variable P which tends to lead to lower losses (see Figure 6). Even more significant is the situation for the investment costs of inverters compared to synchronous generators which can be about one order of magnitude higher at MW sizes. Taken these differences together shows that costs for reactive power by conventional power plants are generally lower than those of WECs. However, the dispersed installation of WECs increases the

competitiveness because a distributed supply near the consumer loads reduces the network losses compared to more centralized supply of conventional generators. 4.1.5 Additional Aspects Additional aspects need to be considered, e.g.: Harmonics: IGTB-based inverters are capable to compensate harmonics while synchronous generators have no influence and SVCs even generate harmonics [4]. Short-circuit behaviour and overload capability: Synchronous generators add with their inertia to system stability and they have an inherent transient overload rating which does not exist with the other technologies. Q dependency on bus voltage V: Independent: synchronous generator Q ~ (1/V): inverter Q ~ (1/V): SVC, capacitors, reactors In case of voltage dips the behaviour of synchronous generators but also inverters is beneficiary. These and further aspects should be included in comprehensive comparisons (see also [19]) of alternative reactive power sources.

situations (peak, plateau, and off-peak). If generating units provide the correct power factors they receive an incentive if they counteract they have to pay a penalty. This incentive is attractive for operators of WECs in Spain. But it cannot be contrasted reasonably here because the incentive is paid per kWh. If the converter is designed appropriately reactive power supply by WECs can be economically attractive looking at the actual prices of network purchase or incentives for network delivery. However, many countries have not yet established any market design. It is recommended to improve reactive power market designs based on real costs of this ancillary service (see also [22]).

4.3 Comparison with Network Operation

Benefits

for

4.2 Comparison with Network Purchase

A comparison with reactive power supply costs or tariffs of network operators allows taking all present sources of reactive power together. An analysis of [20] shows that German distribution network operators charge on average 1.1 c2005/kVArh (0.0 - 2.7 c/kVArh) if the power factor is lower than 0.9 (in average). In the high voltage network the average charge is 1 c/kVArh (0.0 1.5 c/kVArh) and in the extreme high voltage one network operator has a charge of 0.3 c/kVArh. However, this charge is more a penalty than the real costs which should be lower according to section 4.1. National Grid in the United Kingdom spends approx. 0.2 c/kVArh on the reactive power market of the transmission network [21]. The three transmission network organizations PJM, NYISO ad ISO-NE in the United States provide an annual payment in the range of 10055907 US$/MVAr [18] assumed to be 0.75-4.4 /kVAra. This payment would compensate an oversizing of more than 40% of WECs according to Table 2. In addition, the three US network organizations also provide a compensation for lost profits on real energy sales (opportunity costs). ERCOT, for instance, pays not for capacity but for the utilization 2.65 US$/MVARh at power factors smaller than 0.95 [18]. In Spain a royal decree [3] defines three load

Reactive power is necessary for an optimized network operation. It is used 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 sub-sections individually. It is difficult to analyze all three of them combined in general because reactive power control might have opposed effects on these ancillary services depending on the systems state. However, the network operator can take into account all these effects within the optimization of the networks operation. 4.3.1 Voltage Control Voltage control is a basic need for network operation because the voltage has to stay within certain limits throughout the whole network (cf. EN50160). 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. 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), and transient voltage control during faults. WECs 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 and conventional reactive power sources. The competitiveness of WECs in comparison to conventional reactive power suppliers is analysed in section 4.1. Depending on the converters design, its location as well as the network

operators needs WECs can be attractive suppliers of reactive power. Another benefit can arise at the installation phase. The grid design might have caused a restriction of larger WECs due to voltage limits [1,2]. Such connection conditions might be complied by using reactive power control of the respective WECs. The network can be utilized more effectively with this functionality. Transient voltage control happens in milliseconds. This is a service already required from WECs. Due to very fast reaction times and their spatial distribution throughout the network the voltage is supported effectively during faults (cf. fault-ridethrough requirements e.g. in [2,23]). The general benefit is difficult to assess but is expected to be bigger than the costs of providing reactive power for few seconds if the security of supply can be increased. 4.3.2 Reduction of Grid Losses The transfer of reactive power causes active power losses in the network. Reactive power compensation reduces these active power losses. In addition, more network capacity can be used for active power transfer. This additional benefit is not included in the following considerations. Different load power factors cos() and different average network losses dPL (in %) are looked at with constant active power flow P. A quadratic correlation (at constant voltage: ~I) is assumed between losses PL and the apparent power flow S:

cos() 0.95 0.9 0.85

Average Network Losses dPL 1% 2% 3% 4% 0.016 0.033 0.049 0.066 0.024 0.048 0.073 0.097 0.031 0.062 0.093 0.124

Table 3: Savings in c/kVArh due to reduction of active power losses due to reactive power compensation with different load power factors cos(), average network losses dPL, and with costs for active power losses of 5 c/kWh 4.3.3 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. In addition, also network losses are reduced but not considered in the economic assessment in this subsection. Figure 9 displays the relative reduction of the loading of a considered network element (e.g. line or transformer) by reactive power compensation. The network element is assumed to operate at 100% rated capacity Sg considering different load power factors cos() with active power flows P and reactive power flows Q. The reactive power flow is compensated by WECs with 50% of their rated capacity. Their installed capacity Pw is assumed to be 5%, 20% and 50% of the network capacity Sg. The reduction of apparent power S (in % meaning [kVA/kVAr]) relative to reactive power compensation with the reactive power supply Qw by the WECs can be calculated by:

PL = dPL S 2 = dPL P2 + Q2
with

(6)

S =
1 Q = P cos( ) 1 > 0.
2

S g P 2 + (Q Qw ) Qw
2

(7)
=

S g (S g cos( )) + (S g sin( ) Qw ) Qw

(9)

The reduction of active power losses by reactive power compensation Q relative to Q [kW/kVAr] is then defined by:
PL = dPL P 2 + Q 2 P 2 = dPL Q Q
2

[(

(8)

1 = dPL P cos( ) 1

With costs for the compensation of active power losses of 5 c/kWh [24] the benefit of the loss reduction is given in Table 3. A comparison with the costs in Figure 6 shows that it can be economically attractive to use WECs for reactive power compensation in network situations with high network losses and low load power factors (high reactive power flow).

Figure 9 shows that the loading can be reduced by 15% (cos()=0.98), 30% (cos()=0.94) or 45% (cos()=0.87) of the WECs reactive power supply at a penetration level of 20%. This reduction is significant. With the range of S = 15-45% and network costs of 30-60 /kVAa [20,25] the benefit can be calculated as 4.5-27 /kVAra which is by far greater than the investment costs in Table 2. The operational costs can be neglected because some hours of reactive power compensation, say 10-30 h/a for solving the congestions, result in only 1-3 c/kVAra with 0.1 c/kVArh according to Figure 6. The calculated benefit is by far higher than the costs of reactive power compensation by WECs. However, most networks operate below 100% 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 can be applied effectively for using the network infrastructure more effectively at higher loading levels. The peak load normally occurs on winter evenings in Europe [26] or under emergency network situations.
60% Relative Reduction of Loading by Reactive Power Supply 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.99
Pw = 5%Sg Pw = 20%Sg Pw = 50%Sg

0.97

0.95

0.93

0.91

0.89

0.87

0.85

losses in the order of 5 c/kWh [24] we get to a value of approx. 240 Mio of loss reduction. This calculation does not take into account the value of the increased network capacity and further benefits for network operation (e.g. voltage control). The overall benefits and costs of reactive power supply are often considered as minor cost factors in the total electricity supply turnover. Nevertheless, it is very important from an economic perspective because it allows operating the network more stable and secure, e.g. by keeping the voltage limits, solving congestions, supporting stability in case of faults and flexible islanded operation (Microgrid concept [27]). As stated in [22]: inadequate reactive power leading to voltage collapse has been a causal factor in major power outages worldwide.

cos(phi)

Figure 9: Relative reduction of network loading due to reactive power compensation by WECs considering different WEC penetration levels Pw/Sg and different load power factors cos()

6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes the capabilities and availabilities of reactive power supply by WECs showing an interesting potential. This potential is studied concerning its economic usability with an approach of allocating costs of additional losses as well as cost due to oversizing to reactive power supply and assessing the benefits for network operation. The cost-benefit-analysis shows that reactive power supply by WECs can be cheaper than reactive power supply by conventional devices. Reactive power supply by WECs for voltage control can be an economic attractive supplement. It can also be economically attractive for reducing network losses and congestions as well as providing better security of supply in case of faults. One advantageous characteristic of reactive power supply by WECs is its distribution in the network and its location which is often next to loads. This dispersion of reactive power sources can reduce the overall network losses considerably. The paper presents an economic potential of using reactive power supplied by WECs. This potential should be used to optimize the quality, economy and security of network operation. Further on, regulatory issues have to be analysed to design appropriate market frameworks based on real costs of reactive power and giving reasonable incentives to operators of WECs for providing a benefit for network operators. These frameworks should lead to a win-win-situation: for the operators of WECs as well as for network operators.

5 Economic Impact
The cost-benefit analysis shows that the benefit is in most cases greater than the costs of reactive power supply by WECs. Although seeing costs in the order of some 0.01 c/kVArh might result in a statement like: negligible. It is correct that reactive power supply has relatively seen no major cost influence on the profitability of WECs. However, in absolute terms we are discussing about costs which should be taken into account. The following two examples should give an idea about the relevance. We consider a 1 MW WEC with average reactive power supply costs of 0.1 c/kVArh, secured reactive power capacity of 0.5 MVAr, and full load hours of 1000 h/a (for reactive power supply). The operational costs of reactive power supply of this single WEC are then 500 /a. In addition, an oversizing to secured 0.5 MVAr results in additional investment costs of 2.9-5.7 /kVAra or 1,450-2,850 /a. The total costs due to reactive power supply are then 1,950-3,350 /a. This is a minor cost factor (approx. 1%) for a 1 MW WEC with active power generation revenues of 225,000 /a (full load hours for active power supply of 2,500 h/a and 9 c/kWh). But if we are looking at 50 GW of WEC installed in Europe (beginning of 2007) we are talking about annual reactive power supply costs of 97.5-167.5 Mio . From the network perspective we can have a look at the total reactive power demand in the electricity network which has been estimated in [17] to be 1759 TVArh annually for the EU-25 in 2002. Further estimations in [17] result in 1069 TVArh to be compensated and a corresponding network loss reduction of 48 TWh. With costs of network

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was supported by the European Commission in the framework of the FENIX project (SES6 518272, see http://www.fenix-project.org) as well as by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in the framework of the national project Multifunktionale Photovoltaik-Stromrichter Optimierung von Industrienetzen und ffentlichen Netzen (FKZ 0329943, see http://www.multipv.de). Only the author is responsible for the content of this publication. REFERENCES [1] VDEW: Eigenerzeugungsanlagen am Mittelspannungsnetz, 2nd edition, 1998. [2] VDN: EEG-Erzeugungsanlagen am Hochund Hchstspannungsnetz, Berlin, August 2004 [3] Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio: Real Decreto 661/2007, Spain, 25 May 2007 [4] 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. [5] CIGRE WG C6.01: Development of Dispersed Generation and Consequences for Power Systems, 2003 [6] ISET: Wind Energy Report Germany 2005, Kassel, 2005 [7] Enercon: ENERCON Windparks erfllen neuen britischen Grid Code, Enercon Windblatt Magazine, 3, 2007. [8] Enercon: Enercon Wind Turbines Technology & Service, Aurich, Germany, 3, 2007. [9] S. Hartge, F. Fischer: FACTS Capabilities of Wind Energy Converters, European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition, Athens, Greece, 27 February - 2 March 2006 [10] T. Lund, P. Soerensen, J. Eek: Reactive Power Capability of a Wind Turbine with Doubly Fed Induction Generator, Wind Energy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 379-394, 25 April 2007 [11] S. Hao, A. Papalexopoulos: Reactive Power Pricing and Management, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No 1, Feb 1997 [12] M. Braun: Reactive Power Supplied by PVInverters - Cost-Benefit-Analysis, 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Milano, Italy, 3-7 September 2007. [13] VDN: Jahresabrechnung 2005 fr das Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, http://www.vdn-berlin.de, status: 26 Oct 2006 [14] Jahresabrechnung 2006 fr das ErneuerbareEnergien-Gesetz, http://www.vdn-berlin.de, status: 21 Sep 2007

[15] BMU: Mindestvergtungsstze nach dem neuen Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), 21 July 2004. [16] A. Richmann: Impulse fr mehr Wettbewerb in der Energiewirtschaft, Presentation on Energiesymposium der Industrie- und Handelskammer, Dortmund, 21 November 2006. [17] R. Hnler, P. Knoll, J.Stein: Position Paper on the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency Improving Energy Efficiency by Power Factor Correction , ZVEI (Zentralverband Elektrotechnik und Elektronikindustrie) e.V., March 2006 [18] J. Kueck, B. Kirby, T. Rizy, F. Li, N. Fall: Reactive Power from Distributed Energy, The Electricity Journal, Vol. 19, No 10, Dec 2006 [19] Teshmont Consultants: Vermont Electric Power Company Granite Reactive Power Device, Report No. 554-04-20000-1, Winnipeg, 05 Jan 2005 [20] ENET: Datenbank Netznutzungsentgelte, database, status: April 2007. [21] National Grid Transco: Report on Electricity Balancing Services Contracts 1st April 04 31 March 05, Informal Procurement Guidelines Report, 2005 [22] FERC: Principles for Efficient and Reliable Reactive Power Supply and Consumption, Staff Report, Docket No. AD05-1-000, 4 Feb 2005 [23] Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio: RESOLUCIN de 4 de octubre de 2006, de la Secretara General de Energa, por la que se aprueba el procedimiento de operacin 12.3 Requisitos de respuesta frente a huecos de tensin de las instalaciones elicas, BOE No 254, 2006 [24] M. Braun: Analysis of data of German transmission network operators for costs of network losses. Internal Report, Kassel, 2007. Result: 5-6 c/kWh [25] VDN: Daten und Fakten Stromnetze in Deutschland 2007, 2007 [26] REE: 2005 El Sistema Elctrico Espaol, 30 June 2006. [27] European Project: More Microgrids Advanced Architectures and Control Concepts for More Microgrids, 6th European Framework Program, Contract No PL019864, http://microgrids.power.ece.ntua.gr/