CO2 emission savings from PFC

Ando,

You will probably not see any CO2 Savings, but your equipment will run cooler and more efficiently.

You may also save the penalty applied to your bill for the poor power factor, Intergral and Energy Australia both penalise for worse than PF=0.8 if your load is high enough.

Regards,
Sapper.

Sapper,

Country Energy does not appear to have an enforcement policy on PF. They have been taking customers from demand tarrifs and placing them om Kwh tarrifs. Thus there is not financial incentive to to reduce PF.

My understanding is that are the nil or minimal CO2 savings on site, but there should be less energy generated by the generators to supply this inefficient site.

ie: 1000Kva @ 0.5 power factor only gives you 500Kw of usable energy? Therefore the unusable Kvar has to be generated?

This is out of my scope of expertise and any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Ando,

They will certainly penalise you if your load is high enough at that PF.

In Section 1.10.11 of the "Service and Installation Rule for NSW 2007 Amendment" they certainly have the authority to apply penalties to consumers with a poor PF in the form of a "Demand Charge" applied to the bill.

I would check your bill and the tariff notes, you may find a nasty lurking there.

AS 3000 - Wiring Rules and the Service and Installation Rules book would be a good investment if you are covered by Country Energy.

Regards,
Sapper

I understand that there will be reduced line losses and at such a small load there will be minimal savings.

If a site runs at a Power factor of 0.5 does the generation plant have to supply twice the Kva to this site than if it had a power factor of 1?

GA.

It is suspected that the electricity supplier, rather than the electricity user, will be rather more interested in this calculation and will encourage the user to help by imposing tariff charges for low power factor on electricity consumed.

The original poster needs to check the tariff charges and evaluate whether power factor correction equipment is a worthwhile investment to reduce these charges. It is only after this evaluation has been carried out that CO₂ emission reductions could be estimated from the reduced supply line losses. The user calculation then becomes an economic one upon which equipment investment decisions can be made.

Ando you said "The CO2 emission factor for NSW Australia is 1.07kg/Kwh."

If the savings are based on KWH's, then the savings will be very small. If the power factor is 0.547, the generation plant does have to supply more KVA. If the present load is 296 KVA at 0.547 PF, the load would be 162 kva with a PF = 1.0 but the KWH's did not change. Well it changed a little.

This is correct

Does Kvah = Kwh?

Ando,

kWh = kVAh * PF

Regards,
Sapper

Thanks Sapper

Is there any real environmental advantage of installing PFC?

What is the benifit to the generation plants by correcting PFC?

cheers

Ando,

Yes, The Closer we get to achieving prefered Power Factor, the more efficiently the system as a whole will run.

From a site perspective, your switch gear, cabling and protective devices will all run cooler which will promote a longer lifespan and therefore a smaller carbon footprint for the site.

I do encourage power factor correction where is is cost effective for this reason, or if you see penalties appear in your bills.

At this point I would suggest you get a local Electrical Engineer to do a cost\benefit analysis for you, specific to your site if you are really worried about it.

Regards,
Sapper

The advantage to installing PFC correction is that your utility company will charge you less for your electricity.

What really happens as PF drops is that the 'real power' current-carrying capacity of your feed line from the utility drops. A given line is rated for a given current at a standard temperature. If temperature is taken out as a factor, then your utility-feed line can only carry so much current, which is the trigonometric sum of the 'real' current AND the 'reactive' current.

For example, let's say that your feed line can pass 100 A. If you draw 100 A at PF =1, then your line will be maxed out at 100 'real' amps; it won't be able to carry any more 'real' or 'reactive' amps. Likewise, if your PF=0: you'll still draw 100 A and your line will STILL be maxed out; but it won't be transmitting any 'real' power. For in-between cases, you'll have to do the trigonometric math.

So, what would happen if your utility were to feed you 100 A of reactive-only current when your PF would be zero? First, your utility would have to generate that reactive powerm, which would cost the utility. Secondly, if your plant is being charged for 'real' power only, then your power-meter would be reading zero consumption .. and that DESPITE the fact that your utility would be providing you power (albeit reactive). That's why utilities that charge you for 'real' power (current) only will penalize you if your PF gets too low ... you're costing them. Not only will you be forcing your utility to spend on generating reactive power (current), which does nothing 'useful', you'll also be adding 'useless' load on your utility's transmission network and possibly congesting it.

Cheers!
DZ

Dz,

This is where I am coming from.

The site I am looking at is only charged Kwh (real power). Their utility company does not penalise them for low Pf.

ie: If we have a Demand of 1000Kva @ 0.5PF we will have 500Kw of real power being consumed on site. The other 500Kw must be generated due to the Pf of 0.5?

As say it is costing the utility extra to produce/generate this extra reactive power.

If this usage was constant for 1 hour then we would need to generate 1000Kwh to use 500Kwh. Thus the reactive power is 500Kwh. We then multiply this by 1.07kg/kwh to obtain a CO2 emission?

CO2 has to do with combustion efficiency and PF corrections may or may not mean nothing.

I would suggest you Aussies plant trees down under and enjoy the additional trees that can be fed off the additional CO2. Also the additional CO2 could go into the oceans and help build your coral reefs, (CaCO3) and eventually would lead to limestone deposits when the ocean plates climb on your pile of dirt you downunders wear out limiting plant food. Or if you have an emergency call Algore. He may decide to use his higher than Aussie intelligence to help you down unders out. His cap and trade process would even help you finance his life style. Algore, BHO, Hope and Change that is my motto. It should be yours also.

as P.F . improvement is to reduce the energy losses.how it is related to CO2 emission saving can any one guide mi?

The losses in the distributions network and in your plant will be reduced by a few percent of the KVA reduction. It is difficult to get an exact number but 2-5% is probably a reasonable guess.

If you bring your 300KVA at PF=0.5 to a PF=1, you will save 150KVA.

Multiply this by 5% you get 7.5KW of losses. (Evaluated the I2R losses in the distribution network to supply the KVA. Not pure math but likely a good assumption)

This means that you will save 7.5KW * 1Kg/KWh = 7.5Kg/h of operation. This mean 180Kg per day using high value of 5% losses.

Thanks marcot

I have used a detailed calculation based on this information. I understand by reducing the demand, we will reduce line losses etc. As a simple estimate I have been told the 2 - 5 % is in the ball park unless a more detailed investigation is carried out.

But, at the generation plant, there must be extra production to supply this inifficient site.

I thank evreyone for their time and comments.