See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265178984

Cost optimal sizing of photovoltaic inverters-

Influence of new grid codes and cost reductions

Article

CITATIONS READS

8 228

4 authors, including:

Thomas Stetz Martin Braun

Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen Universität Kassel
47 PUBLICATIONS 818 CITATIONS 198 PUBLICATIONS 1,598 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bernd Engel
Technische Universität Braunschweig
30 PUBLICATIONS 87 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Photovoltaische Energiemanagement-Station View project

Grid integration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Stetz on 25 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COST OPTIMAL SIZING OF PHOTOVOLTAIC INVERTERS
- INFLUENCE OF NEW GRID CODES AND COST REDUCTIONS -

T. Stetz1, J. Künschner1, M. Braun1, B. Engel2

(1) Fraunhofer IWES, Koenigstor 59, D-34119 Kassel, Germany

Phone +49(0)561/7294-284, Fax +49(0)561/7294-400, E-mail: tstetz@iset.uni-kassel.de

(2) SMA Solar Technology AG, Sonnenallee 1, D-34266 Niestetal, Germany

Phone +49(0) 561/95 22-0, Fax +49(0) 561/95 22-100, Internet: http://www.sma.de

ABSTRACT: In this paper the economically optimized inverter sizing is determined for PV inverters which have to
provide reactive power. A PV module model and a PV inverter model were developed in Matlab®, based on real
one-year solar irradiation profiles provided by Meteonorm® and recorded at Fraunhofer IWES test sites. The single
cost categories of a PV inverter are introduced and discussed with respect to an economically optimized sizing
considering reactive power supply. The investigated reactive power supply methods follow the suggestions in the
German technical guideline for the connection of generators to the medium voltage network and the recent draft of
the technical guideline for the connection to the low voltage network. The results show that the sizing of a PV
inverter has to be adapted to the respective reactive power supply methods in order to keep it economically
optimized.

Keywords: Inverter, Cost-Optimal Sizing, Reactive Power,

1 INTRODUCTION 2 SIMULATION ASSUMPTIONS

Today, the size of photovoltaic (PV) inverters is
economically optimized with respect to pure active
power feed-in, often leading to undersized inverters in
areas with moderate climate [1], [2].
With the steadily increasing number of installed PV
systems in distribution systems, current regulatory
voltage limitations run the risk of being violated in times
of high solar irradiation, due to a high simultaneous
active power feed-in by PV systems. For this reason, a
decentralized provision of reactive power by PV systems,
in order to counteract those unallowable high voltage
rises, is currently under discussion. In Germany, for
example, the recent draft of the guideline “generators
connected to the low voltage distribution network” [3]
will most likely aim at an obligation for PV systems to
supply reactive power at their points of common
coupling (PCC). Similar requirements already exist for
the connection and parallel operation of generators
connected to the medium voltage network [4].
However, recent studies have shown that such a
commitment would lead to additional costs, especially
for the operators of PV systems [5]. Thereby, the sizing
of the inverters could be identified as a major influencing
factor on the total additional costs [6]. Because of this,
the imminent regulatory developments clearly demand
for a new cost-optimal approach for the sizing of PV
inverters. This paper presents the latest result on an
economically optimized inverter sizing under
consideration of reactive power provision.
The calculations regarding an optimized inverter sizing
are performed using Matlab® from MathWorks. All
results are based on one-year quasi-static calculations
with a temporal resolution of 1 minute. The basic
framework conditions for the calculations are discussed
in the following.
Photovoltaic system model
A PV module model and a PV inverter model were set up
in Matlab® to simulate the behavior of real PV systems
with different specifications (Figure 1). Amongst others,
the PV module model uses time series for the local solar
irradiation and the local temperature (provided by
Meteonorm® and by Fraunhofer IWES) to calculate the
DC power output depending on its location, its
orientation and the module technology. The
Meteonorm® data was only available in 1 hour average
values which had to be interpolated in order to get 1
minute time series. The Meteonorm® transformation
model was used for the interpolation [7]. The recording
year of the used Meteonorm® data is 1997. The
recording year of the own measurement data in Kassel is
1997.
The PV inverter model uses the DC power PDC as its
input variable. The PV inverter itself is specified by its
measured efficiency and the used reactive power supply
method.

Section 2 introduces the simulation assumptions,

including the PV system model, the used reactive power
supply methods and the specification of the reference
scenario. In section 3, the different cost categories are
listed and the results of the reference scenario are shown.
Finally, the results of different sensitivity analyses are
discussed in section 4, including analyses according the
used reactive power supply methods, the location of the
Figure 1: Schematic of the PV module model and the PV
PV system, its orientation and future cost and price inverter model.
developments.
Reactive power supply methods
For this investigation, three different kind reactive power
supply methods are distinguished, following the
suggestions in [3] and [4]. These are:
• A fixed cosφ method (fixed power factor)
• A cosφ(PDC) function and
• A Q(U) droop function
Different versions of the cosφ(PDC) function and the
Q(U) droop function are depicted in figure 2 and 3. For
the fixed cosφ method a power factor of 0.9 and 0.95 is
considered.
inverter model. Figure 4 shows the bandwidth of the used
voltage profile, created by performing one year load flow
calculations for a PCC in a rural low voltage network,
equipped with a 30 kWp PV generator and fluctuating
loads. The voltage profile depicts the steady state voltage
magnitude after reactive power supply. The blue line
marks those voltage values which occurred during 95%
of the simulation time. The black dashed line depicts the
5% minimum respectively maximum voltage values. The
average of all voltage values is 0.997 p.u..

Figure 4: Voltage bandwidth for the investigation of the

Q(U) methods.

3 COST CATEGORIES
This section describes the single cost categories which
Figure 2: Investigated cosφ(P) characteristics. have to be taken into account for the determination of an
economically optimized inverter sizing under
consideration of reactive power provision.

Investment Costs for Inverters: The total investment costs

of PV inverters Cinv [€] are calculated by multiplying the
nominal apparent power of the inverter S [kVA] with the
specific investment costs of the inverter c [€/ kVA].

Cinv = S ⋅ c [€ ] (1)

Figure 3: Investigated Q(U) characteristics with and

To calculate the annual investment costs it is necessary to
without deadband. transform the total investment costs into constant annual
payment rates. These constant annual investment costs
are called the annuity A of the investment costs and are
Reference scenario: determined by the inverters lifetime n (10 years) and the
The following specifications are considered for the discount rate i (5%).
reference scenario. The reimbursement follows the recent
version of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act
q n ⋅ (q − 1) ⎡ € ⎤ (2)
for PV generators up to 30 kWp. The specific investment A = C inv ⋅ with q =1 + i
q n − 1 ⎢⎣ yr ⎥⎦
costs of the inverter are assumed as 320 €/ kVA.

Table 1: Specification of the reference scenario Costs by additional inverter losses: Providing reactive
Location Kassel, Mid-Germany power by PV inverters leads to additional active power
Module tilt angle 30°
losses ΔPL [kW] within the inverter, compared to pure
Module orientation 0° (south)
Module technology Polycrystalline silicon active power feed-in. The specific additional losses ΔpL
SMA Sunny Mini [kW/ kVA] can be calculated solving a recursive
PV Inverter
Central TL algorithm introduced in [8].
Max.inverter efficiency / Euro-eta 97.7% / 97.3%
Reimbursement PV for energy 0.3405 €/ kWh
2 2 2
Specific investment costs 320 €/ kVA ⎛ P (t ) ⎞ ⎛ Q(t ) ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ PAC (t ) ⎞ ⎛ Q(t ) ⎞ ⎞
Reactive power supply method Fixed cosφ Δp L (t ) = c self + cv ⋅ ⎜ AC ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + c R ⎜⎜ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ S ⎠ ⎝ S ⎠ ⎝⎝ S ⎠ ⎝ S ⎠⎠
Inverter lifetime 10 years
Discount rate 5% ⎡ ⎛ P (t*) ⎞
2
⎛ P (t*) ⎞ ⎤⎥
2

− ⎢c self + cv ⋅ ⎜ AC ⎟ + c R ⎜ AC ⎟
⎢ ⎝ S ⎠ ⎝ S ⎠ ⎥⎦
Voltage profile for Q(U) droop function ⎣
For the simulations of the Q(U) reactive power supply (3)
method a voltage profile for the point of common
coupling (PCC) is needed as an input value for the
Here, cself stands for the standby losses [kW/ kWp], cv [-]
for the voltage dependent losses and cR [kWp/ kW] for
the current dependant losses within the inverter. For the
same generator DC power output (PDC) the active power
output of the inverter PAC is different

PAC (t ) ≠ PAC (t*)

when reactive power has to be provided.

Q(t ) ≠ 0 and Q(t*) = 0

The annual additional operational costs ΔCoperational [€/ yr] Figure 5: PQ-Diagram for a PV inverter, explaining the
is the product of the specific annual additional energy different kinds of opportunity costs.
losses ΔEL [kWh/(kVA yr)] multiplied with the current
The PV energy which cannot be fed-in (ΔEopp) [kWh/ yr]
reimbursement for PV energy co [€/ kWh] and the size of
due to reactive power supply, assessed with the current
the inverter S [kVA].
reimbursement for PV energy co [€/ kWh], leads to the so
called additional opportunity costs ΔCopp [€/ yr].
⎛T ⎞ ⎡€⎤
ΔCoperational = ⎜⎜ ∫ Δp L (t ) ⎟⎟ ⋅ S ⋅ co = ΔE L ⋅ S ⋅ co ⎢ ⎥ (4)
⎝ t =1 ⎠ ⎣ yr ⎦ ⎛T ⎞ ⎡€⎤
ΔCopp = ⎜⎜ ∫ ΔPopp ,Q ≠ 0 (t ) ⎟⎟ ⋅ co = ΔEopp ⋅ co ⎢ ⎥ (8)
⎝ t =1 ⎠ ⎣ yr ⎦
The total operational costs of an inverter with reactive
power provision Coperational,Q≠0 [€/ yr] can be calculated as
The total opportunity costs Copp,Q≠0 comprise of the
Coperational , Q ≠ 0 = Coperational , Q = 0 + ΔCoperational (5) regular opportunity costs Copp,Q=0 and the additional
opportunity costs ΔCopp.
considering also the operational costs by active power
feed-in Coperational,Q=0 [€/ yr]. ⎡€⎤ (9)
Copp ,Q ≠0 = Copp ,Q =0 + ΔCopp ⎢ yr ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Costs by additional opportunity losses: Opportunity
losses in general occur, if the active power output of a Now, the goal is to find the specific inverter sizing s
PV inverter has to be reduced. This might happen during [kVA/ kWp] where the total annual inverter costs CQ≠0
times of high solar irradiation, when the current DC
are at its minimum.
power generation exceeds the sizing of the inverter. Now,
considering reactive power provision by PV inverters, the
CQ≠0 = f ( s) → min (10)
active power reduction Popp,Q≠ 0 [kW] does not only
with ⎡ € ⎤ (11)
depend on the DC power generation, but also on the CQ≠0 = A + Copp ,Q≠0 + Coperational ,Q≠0 ⎢ yr ⎥
reactive power output Q(t) (compare figure 5). The part ⎣ ⎦
of the total opportunity losses Popp,Q ≠ 0 which is only due
Figure 6 shows the respective characteristics of the
to the additional reactive power provision is called different cost categories for the reference scenario using
additional opportunity losses ΔPopp,Q≠0 [kW]. a fixed cosφ method with a power factor of 0.9. The costs
respectively savings, depicted on the Y-axes, are the
annual additional costs compared to the annual costs of
ΔPopp ,Q ≠0 (t ) = Popp ,Q ≠0 (t ) − Popp ,Q =0 (t ) [kW ] (6) an inverter without reactive power provision and a sizing
ratio Smax/ PDCmax of 1.
ΔPopp ,Q ≠0 (t ) = S max (1 − Δp L (t ) ) − S max − Q(t ) 2 [kW ] (7)
2

Here,
Smax = maximum apparent power of the inverter [kVA]
Q(t) = reactive power provision at time t [kvar]
ΔpL = specific additional operational losses [kW/ kVA]
PDC(t) = DC power generation at time t [kW]

Figure 6: Single cost categories for an economically
optimized inverter sizing.
Figure 7 compares the characteristics of the total annual
inverter costs for an inverter with reactive power
provision and an inverter without (reference scenario). It
can be seen that by providing reactive power with a fixed
power factor of 0.9, the economical inverter sizing has to
be increased by approx. 12% for the reference scenario.
Figure 7: Additional sizing, due to reactive power supply.
4 COST OPTIMAL INVERTER SIZING – A
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
In this section sensitivity analyses with respect to an
economically optimized inverter sizing are discussed.
The results for the following sensitivity analyses are
introduced:
• Different reactive power supply methods
• Alignment of the PV module
• Location of the PV system
• Costs and reimbursements
Reactive power supply methods
Figure 8 shows the economical optimal inverter sizing for
Kassel, Germany, by applying the introduced reactive
power supply methods. The specific additional annual
inverter costs respectively savings compared to the
reference are plotted on the Y-axis. The economically
optimized inverter sizing is plotted on the X-axis. If no
reactive power is supplied at all, the economically
optimized inverter sizing for Kassel would be
0.72 kVA/ kWp for the investigated year with specific
additional annual savings of 8 €/ (kW yr) compared to an
inverter sizing of 1 kVA/ kWp. Now, providing reactive
power, the economically optimized inverter sizing
increases, leading to lower annual savings compared to
pure active power feed-in. The single reactive power
supply methods can be distinguished by the color of the
respective bubbles. Index (1) depicts those methods with
a minimum power factor of 0.9 (as currently discussed
for generators installed in Germany with more than
13.8 kVA [3]) and index (2) all methods with a minimum
power factor of 0.95 (as currently discussed for
generators installed in Germany with less than 13.8 kVA
[3]). Due to the fact that a lower minimum power factor
leads to more reactive power provision during one year,
all methods with a minimum power factor of 0.9 show a
higher optimized sizing than their respective subversion
with a minimum power factor of 0.95.
Figure 8: Economically optimized inverter sizing and the
specific costs respectively savings by different reactive power
supply methods.
Table 2 depicts the additional sizing of the PV inverter
by reactive power supply which is necessary to keep the
sizing economically optimized.
Table 2: Additional sizing of PV inverters to keep point of
minimal costs.
Min. Power Q(U) Fixed
Q(U) Cosφ(P)
Factor deadband Cosφ
0.95 + 1.3% 0% + 2.6% + 4.7%
0.9 + 2.7% + 1.3% + 6.7% + 12%
Figure 9 shows the total annual savings for an exemplary
30 kWp PV inverter (economically optimized) compared
to the total annual costs of a PV inverter with a
suboptimal sizing of 1 kVA/ kWp. According to the
recently discussed German guideline for the connection
of generators to the low voltage network [3], PV systems
with an installed capacity of 30 kWp would have to
provide a minimum power factor of 0.9. Because of this,
only the respective subversions of the reactive power
supply methods with a minimum power factor of 0.9 are
considered. The figure shows the importance of the
single reactive power supply methods for an
economically optimized inverter sizing and for the annual
inverter costs. For this investigation, using a Q(U)
method with a deadband of ± 2% of the nominal
voltage would lead to the lowest annual additional costs
by reactive power supply (additional costs are the
difference between the annual savings with and without
reactive power supply). Since the Q(U) method strongly
depends on the location of the PV system’s point of
common coupling (PCC), the additional costs might
change for different PCCs. From a technical point of
view, Q(U) methods tend to cause reactive power
oscillations within the network [9]. For the PV plant
operator, the economically worst way of providing
reactive power is to use a fixed power factor method.
Figure 9: Total annual savings of a 30 kWp PV system in
Germany by an economically optimized inverter sizing.
Alignment of the PV modules
In this subsection, the influence of the alignment of the
PV modules on the economically optimized inverter
sizing is discussed.
Figure 10 shows the economically optimized inverter
sizing depending on the orientation of the PV modules
for the reference scenario by using a fixed cosφ method
with a power factor of 0.95. The results show a strong
correlation between the energy yield and the
economically optimized sizing of a PV inverter at
different module orientation and tilt angles for PV
systems in Germany [1]. The slight shift of the sizing
values towards east is due to the temperature on the solar
module. Higher temperatures during noon usually reduce
the DC power generation [10].
Figure 10: Economically optimized inverter sizing depending
on the orientation and tilt angle of the PV module by using a
fixed power factor of 0.95.
Figure 11 depicts the specific additional inverter costs by
providing a fixed power factor of 0.95 (compare
Figure 9) compared to the reference scenario at different
tilt and orientation angles. It can be seen that the highest
additional costs by reactive power occur in cases where
the PV module is aligned energetically optimized. This is
due to higher average solar irradiation on the tilted
surface and therefore influences the additional
opportunity costs during operation.
Figure 11: Specific additional inverter costs by using a fixed
power factor of 0.95.
Location of PV systems
In this subsection, the influence of the location of the PV
system on the economically optimized inverter sizing is
discussed. Therefore, several locations in Europe were
investigated for PV systems providing a fixed power
factor of 0.95 (compare Figure 12). The irradiation
profiles are based on the Meteonorm® database.
On the one hand, the results show that there are
significant differences for an economically optimized
inverter sizing depending on the location of the PV
system in Europe. On the other hand, the ratio of the
optimal inverter sizing with reactive power supply and
without reactive power supply is almost constant with
+6% to +7% for all of the investigated locations. This
indicates that the influence of the location of the PV
system on the additional sizing, due to reactive power
supply, is marginal.
Figure 12: Economically optimized inverter sizing depending
on different location within Europe.
Future costs and reimbursements developments
In this paragraph the influence of reimbursement rates for
PV energy and investment costs of the PV inverter on the
economically optimized inverter sizing are discussed.
Figure 13 shows the economically optimized inverter
sizing and the specific costs respectively savings of the
reference scenario, depending on the reimbursement for
PV energy. A power factor of 0.95 is considered for the
fixed cosφ method.
It can be seen that the additional reactive power provision
increases the additional costs and the economically
optimized sizing compared to pure active power feed-in.
The higher the reimbursement rates for PV energy, the
higher the economically optimized inverter sizing. This is
due to the fact that the costs by operational inverter
losses and opportunity losses gain in importance at
higher reimbursement rates. In future, lower
reimbursement rates will lead to lower economically
optimized inverter sizings.
Figure 13: Economically optimized inverter sizing and
related costs considering different reimbursement rates.
Figure 14 shows the economically optimized inverter
sizing, depending on the specific investment costs for the
PV inverter. In contrast to the energy dependent costs by
opportunity and additional inverter losses (which
increase with increasing reimbursement rates), the
economically optimized inverter size decreases with
increasing specific investment costs. By the increasing
specific investment costs for the PV inverter also the
savings potential by an economically optimized sizing
will be increased (see right Y-axes). Possible investment
cost reduction in future will hence lead to bigger inverter
sizes. The additional provision of reactive power
increases the economically optimized inverter sizing and
the additional costs compared to pure active power feed-
in.
Figure 14: Economically optimized inverter sizing and
related cost considering different specific investment costs
for the PV inverter..
5 CONCLUSIONS
The cost categories of a PV inverter were analysed in
order to determine the influence of reactive power
provision on the economically optimized inverter sizing.
The results of the investigations show that the sizing of
PV inverters should be adapted to reactive power
provision. One of the major influencing factors on an
economically optimized inverter sizing is the reactive
power supply method itself. Simulations, conducted for a
PV system Germany showed a wide range for the
additional sizing of up to +12% compared to no reactive
power provision, depending on the reactive power supply
method.
It turned out that the influence of the orientation and tilt
angle as well as the location of the PV system on the
additional inverter sizing due to reactive power is
marginal. Further simulations showed that decreasing
reimbursement rates for PV energy lower the
economically optimized inverter sizing while decreasing
investment costs lead to the opposite effect.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank the German Federal Ministry for
the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear
Safety and the Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH (PTJ)
for the support within the framework of the project “PV-
EMS” (FKZ 0325028). The authors are solely
responsible for the content of this publication.
REFERENCES
[1] SMA Regelsysteme GmbH, Department Solartechnics
(2003). Die optimale Auslegung einer netzgekoppelten PV-
Anlage – Vorabausgabe. Kassel, 2003
Published at:
http://www.sonne-nrw.de/Dokumente/
SMA+optimale+Auslegung-PV-Anlage.pdf (13.01.2010)
[2] Woyte, A., Islam, S., Belmans, N., Nijs, J. (2003).
Unterdimensionieren des Wechselrichters bei der
Netzkopplung - Wo liegt das Optimum? 18th Symposium
Photovoltaic Solar Energy, Bad Staffelstein, 2003; pp. 433-
438.
[3] Verband der Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik
e.V. (VDN) (2010). Erzeugungsanlagen am Nieder-
spannungsnetz Technische Mindestanforderungen für
Anschluss und Parallelbetrieb von Erzeugungsanlagen am
Niederspannungsnetz – Draft of 07-08-2010. Berlin
www.vde.com/de/fnn/dokumente/documents
[4] German Association of Energy and Water Industries
e.V.(2008). Technical Condition for the Connection to the
medium-voltage network. Berlin, 2008
[5] Braun, M., Stetz, T., Reimann, B., Valov, B., Arnold, G.
(2009). Optimal Reactive Power Supply in Distribution
Networks – Technological and Economic Assessment for
PV-Systems. 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conference and Exhibition. Hamburg, 2009
[6] Stetz, T., Braun, M. (2010). Wirtschaftlich optimierte
Blindleistungsbereitstellung durch Photovoltaikanlagen in
Niederspannungsnetzen. 25th Symposium Photovoltaic
Solar Energy. Bad Staffelstein, 2010
[7] METEOTEST (2010). METEONORM Version 6.0 –
Handbook part II: Theory. Version 6.120. Bern, 2010-04-
27
[8] Braun, M. (2008). Rective Power Supply by Distributed
Generators. Proceedings IEEE Power and Energy Society
– General Meeting. Pittsburgh, 2008
 [9] Schaupp, T., Meyer, T., Backes, J., Wieben, E. (2010).
Entwicklung und Untersuchung von Solarwechselrichtern
mit spannungsabhängiger Blindleistungseinspeisung in
Labor und Feld. 25th Symposium Photovoltaic Solar
Energy. Bad Staffelstein, 2010

[10] Burger, B., Rühter, R. (2006). Inverter sizing of grid-

connected photovoltaic systems in the light of local solar
resource distribution characteristics and temperature.
Elsevier Solar Energy, issue 80 (2006), page 32-45. 2006

View publication stats