1

CAPER Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

• At Distribution Level • Our Design Approach •

TEAM MEMBERS : Johnson Ngocorai Alaa Aldalooj Bhargav Patel Kongmeeng Her Lawrence Cole (Project Lead)

Project Mentors : Nabila BouSaba (Advisor) Dr. Sukumar Kamalasadan (Faculty Mentor) Lee Easter (Technical Advisor) Project Sponsor : Sherif Abdelrazek, Ph.D.

2

Table of Contents

01 Objective and Scope

03 Optimal Placement of DER 02 Long Term Dynamics

04 Analysis

05 Future Plan

06 Conclusion

3

Objective and Scope

SCOPE :

❖ Complete review of available distribution BESS chemistries and technologies for optimal technology selection

❖ Model BESS and PV system in CYME ❖ Evaluate performance of selected BESS ❖ Analyze the circuit efficiency with and without the BESS and PV system ❖ Find optimal location of BESS and PV system on the feeder

OBJECTIVE :

Design and find the optimum location for a 1 MW (2 MWh) BESS with 2 MW Solar facility within the feeder such that the value from the new Distributed Energy Resources is maximized.

4

Battery Chemistries

5

Battery Chemistries

6

01 Objective and Scope

03 Optimal Placement of DER 02 Long Term Dynamics

04 Analysis

05 Future Plan

06 Conclusion

Table of Contents

7

Model Structure and Devices Locations

8

LTD Simulations for Various Combinations of Feeder Load and PV Active Power Profiles

● Heavy and light load profiles

● Clear and intermittent PV power profiles

● Find the most vulnerable locations as it pertains to over/under voltage

● Study aims to use outcomes as guidance in DER and BESS placement criterion

PV_ClearDay_1Day

PV_IntermittentDay_1

Day

PV_Real_Measurements_FullYear

Light_Load_1Day

Heavy_Load_1Day

Real_Measurements_Load_Full

Year

9

LTD Results - Four Combinations - One Day Data Type

PV Load

C1 Clear-1Day Heavy-1Day

C2 Clear-1Day Light-1Day

C3 Intermittent-1Day Heavy-1Day

C4 Intermittent-1Day Light-1Day

10

Long Term Dynamics Results (Feeder Voltage Profiles)

● No voltage violation throughout C1 through C4.

● Voltage drops more in case-1 and case-3 as Heavy Loads were used in both cases.

11

Long Term Dynamics Results (Regulators Taps Operations)

12

Long Term Dynamics Results C5 to C9 (Feeder Voltage Profile)

● Voltage profiles are within allowable limits.

● Voltage regulators are tapping accordingly for all loads types provided.

PV Load

C5 Clear-Full Year Real-Full Year

C6 Intermittent-Full Year Real-Full Year

C7 Real-Full Year Real-Full Year

C8 Real-Full Year Light-Full Year

C9 Real-Full Year Heavy-Full Year

13

Long Term Dynamics Results C5 to C9 (Feeder Voltage Profile)

OLTC LReg1 LReg2 Total number of Taps

Case Taps-A Taps-B Taps-C Taps-A Taps-B Taps-C Taps-A Taps-B Taps-C

Case-5 1065 858 960 2260 1192 2025 2297 1260 1994 13911

Case-6 698 424 513 2091 705 1808 1894 681 1581 10395

Case-7 681 462 578 2021 687 1703 1836 653 1609 10230

Case-8 431 327 223 469 282 133 448 255 760 3328

Case-9 146 153 89 3070 489 2491 2613 679 1879 11609

14

01

03 Optimal Placement of DER 02 Long Term Dynamics

04 Analysis

05 Future Plan

06 Conclusion

Table of Contents

Objective and Scope

15

DER Optimal Placement Criterion

Key Factors ●Feeder’s furthest locations have voltage vulnerability ●Taps operations minimization ●Line losses reduction ●PCC over voltage due to reverse power flow ●Facility placed at the n number of tentative locations. ●Voltage Deviation Index (VDI) is calculated as follows:

16

Tentative Locations for New DER Placement Criterion

System OLTC and line regulators

Shunt Capacitor

17

01

03 Optimal Placement of DER 02 Long Term Dynamics

04 Analysis

05 Future Plan

06 Conclusion

Table of Contents

Objective and Scope

18

Long Term Dynamics for 7 locations - C1 -Voltage Profiles

Voltage Deviation Index (VDI)

PCC2-Index PCC1 PCC2 Location-2

PCC2-1 0.0328 0.0423 0.0281

PCC2-2 0.0333 0.035 0.0426 PCC2-3 0.0327 0.042 0.0281

PCC2-4 0.0297 0.0358 0.0287 PCC2-5 0.0333 0.0344 0.037

PCC2-6 0.0333 0.0327 0.0403 PCC2-7 0.0333 0.049 0.0491

19

Long Term Dynamics for 7 locations - C1 -Voltage Profiles

OLTC LReg1 LReg2 Total Taps operations

Losses (kWh) PCC2-

Index Taps-A Taps-B Taps-C Taps-A Taps-B Taps-C Taps-A Taps-B Taps-C

PCC2-1 4 3 4 20 12 18 16 6 11 94 209

PCC2-2 4 3 4 20 6 16 14 8 11 86 204

PCC2-3 4 3 4 20 12 18 16 6 11 94 206

PCC2-4 4 3 4 20 12 18 16 6 11 94 209

PCC2-5 4 3 4 20 6 11 14 8 11 81 204

PCC2-6 4 3 4 20 6 16 14 8 11 86 204

PCC2-7 4 3 4 20 6 16 14 8 11 86 212

20

Long Term Dynamics for 7 locations - C5 -Voltage Profiles

● Minimal VDI was achieved by placing DER in PCC2-2, PCC2-5, and PCC2-6

21

Long Term Dynamics for 7 locations - C5 - Taps Operations & Power Losses

OLTC LReg1 LReg2 Total Taps operations

Losses (MWh)

PCC2-Index

Taps-A

Taps-B

Taps-C

Taps-A

Taps-B

Taps-C

Taps-A

Taps-B

Taps-C

PCC2-1 1862 1569 1637 3507 2685 3420 2821 2086 2525 22112 587

PCC2-2 1864 1575 1639 2605 1680 2364 3187 2436 2994 20344 558

PCC2-3 1862 1569 1637 3499 2679 3416 2819 2086 2527 22094 587

PCC2-4 1858 1563 1629 3485 2663 3416 2815 2078 2525 22032 616

PCC2-5 1860 1569 1631 2601 1680 2364 3195 2416 2988 20304 593

PCC2-6 1860 1569 1633 2601 1680 2362 3193 2412 2988 20298 588

PCC2-7 1842 1559 1627 2589 1668 2360 3179 2398 2978 20200 643

● There is a trade-off between optimal location as far as different evaluation indexes are concerned.

● Throughout the whole year, minimal losses are achieved when DER is placed at PCC2-2, PCC2-5 and PCC2-6.

22

Probable Value Streams

Line Loss Reduction

Regulator Tap Operations Reduction

Voltage Profile Improvement

Energy Time Shift

Solar Hosting Capacity Increase

Probable Value

Streams

23

Long Term Dynamics for 7 locations - C7 - Taps Operations & Power Losses

● Minimum line losses occur when the PV facility is placed at PCC2-2 ● PCC2-5 and PCC2-6 are next best locations to place DER

24

Taps Operations and Power Losses Cost Savings

Taps

($0.07/tap) Line Losses

($0.10/kWh) Total Cost

PCC2-1 $1223 $48,541 $49,764

PCC2-2 $1160 $46,682 $47,841

PCC2-3 $1223 $48,410 $49,633

PCC2-4 $1220 $50,162 $51,381

PCC2-5 $1158 $48,681 $49,839

PCC2-6 $1159 $48,373 $49,532

PCC2-7 $1469 $59,297 $60,766

● The taps cost are calculated from the total taps in one year multiplied by the cost per tap

● Calculation results for the line loss cost is from the total line losses in one year multiplied by the cost per kWh

● As seen PCC2-2 would cost the least as it saves the most on line losses

25

01 Objective and Scope

03 Optimal Placement of DER 02 Long Term Dynamics

04 Analysis

05 Future Plan

06 Conclusion

Table of Contents

26

Future Plan

11-09-2017 CAPER

Conference

11-11-2017 Add BESS and

evaluate its performance at

the selected location

11-13-2017 Work on the Python script to ensure BESS performs

as desired

11-17-2017 Test the BESS and PV system

at all 7 locations to confirm the

optimal location

11-23-2017 Gather all

results and analyze and fix

any other issues

11-30-2017 Work on the

documentation and initial

report

12-3-2017 Create a Final

report with changes from the initial one

12/8/2017 Poster

Presentation and Prototype Demonstration

(EXPO) Preparation

12/9/2017 Final Report

and Comprehensive

Document Submission

27

Conclusion

● An iterative criterion is implemented to select optimal place for an additional 2 MW PV facility (DER-2).

● It is more valuable to add DER at the downstream part of line regulator-2 as far as all evaluation indexes are concerned.

● Base on the monetary values, line loss reduction is the most valuable index, PCC2-2 should be considered as an optimal location for DER.

28

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by CAPER and DUKE ENERGY

● UNCC CAPER 1 senior design team would like to acknowledge our sponsor, Duke Energy, and CAPER along with EPIC for their guidance throughout this project.

● A special thanks and acknowledgment to Muhammad Ahmed (Graduate Research Assistant) for his help with the CYME simulation software and giving constructive feedback.

29

Thank You! Any Questions?