APPLICATION NOTE OPTIMAL CABLE SIZING IN PV SYSTEMS: CASE STUDY

Lisardo Recio Maillo June 2013

ECI Publication No Cu0167 Available from www.leonardo-energy.org

Document Issue Control Sheet

Document Title: Publication No: Issue: Release: Author(s): Reviewer(s): Application Note Optimal Cable Sizing in PV Systems: case study Cu0167 02 Public Lisardo Recio Maillo Hans De Keulenaer, Fernando Nuno

Document History
Issue 1 Date Oct 2009 Initial Public Release Purpose

June 2013

Revision in the framework of the Good Practice Guide

Disclaimer
While this publication has been prepared with care, European Copper Institute and other contributors provide no warranty with regards to the content and shall not be liable for any direct, incidental, or consequential damages that may result from the use of the information or the data contained.

Copyright European Copper Institute. Reproduction is authorized providing the material is unabridged and the source is acknowledged.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page i

CONTENTS
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 2 Design phase .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Design to maximum allowed current ..................................................................................................................... 5 Design to maximum allowed voltage drop ............................................................................................................. 8 Resulting section ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Calculation of the economic section ............................................................................................................... 9 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................... 16

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page ii

SUMMARY
It is often beneficial to over-size the cross-section of electricity cables compared to the standard values that follow out of voltage and current calculations. In the large majority of cases, oversizing has a positive influence on the Life Cycle Cost of the installation. The investment in larger cable is easily paid back by the reduction of Joule losses inside the cable and the subsequent savings on electricity bills. When the cable is part of a photovoltaic (PV) installation, the investment in a larger-than-standard cable is paid back even faster than in other installations. This is because the allocated electricity price for a PV installation is higher than the market price thanks to the feed-in tariff of green certificates. In other words: the energy losses that are avoided in a PV installation lead to an even bigger financial reward than in other installations. Increasing the cable cross section in PV installations also creates additional technical and environmental benefits.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 1

INTRODUCTION
This analysis was carried out for a 100 kW PV plant located in Spain.

PV PLANT FEATURES
Location: Valencia, Spain Panel installation mode: fixed, tilted at 30 degrees facing south Number of panels in series in each array : 16 Number of arrays: 33 Maximum ambient temperature: 50 C Cable type: Tecsun (PV) (AS) (special cable for photovoltaic systemslifespan 30 years, maintenance free) System installation: open mesh tray (without thermal influence of other circuits)

PV MODULES
Nominal power: 222 W Current at maximum power: IPMP = 7.44 A Voltage at maximum power: Upmp = 29.84 V Short Circuit Current: Icc = 7.96

M ISCELLANEOUS
Inverter power = plant nominal power: 100 kW Modules peak power: 16 x 33 x 222 W = 117,216 W = 117.216 kW

The entire installation comprises three blocks of eleven arrays each, connected respectively into three junction boxes (CCG1, CCG2, and CCG3) (see picture of CCG1 below).

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 2

Figure 1 Electric lines distribution. We will focus on the line between the CCG1 junction box and the inverters. Two cables are used.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 3

Figure 2 Junction box. We calculate the voltage and current for each junction box at the point of maximum power. We then derive the cable section for the main DC line from this.

VOLTAGE
For a given array, the panels are connected in series, so the total voltage of one array is the sum of the voltages of the individual modules. This is the applicable voltage at the junction box level. U = Upmp x 16 = 29.84 V x 16 = 477.44 V

CURRENT
The total current per junction box is the sum of the currents of the individual arrays. There are 11 arrays per junction box. I = Ipmp x 11 = 7.44 x 11 = 81.84 A

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 4

Figure 3 View of an array

DESIGN PHASE
DESIGN TO MAXIMUM ALLOWED CURRENT
The applicable code in Spain is Low Voltage Regulation. This code states that the calculated maximum current has to be increased by a margin of 25% when designing an installation (ITC-BT 40 article). A temperature correction must be added to this, since the operational temperature of the cable will reach 50 C. Standard UNE 20460-5-523 for outside installations (Table A.52-1 bis) states that a temperature correction must be applied when the operational temperature reaches 40 C or more. Table 52-D1 for an ambient temperature of 50 C and cable type Tecsun (thermostable) gives a coefficient of 0.9. Taking into account that the cable will be exposed to the sun, the correction factor 0.9 will be applied twice. I ' = 1.25 x 81.84 / (0.9 x 0.9) = 126.3 A 126.3 A is the corrected design value of the current. We will now use this value in Table A.52-1a to determine the cable section. Cable is lying on a grill type rack (Category F in the table). The insulation type used on Tecsun (PV) (AS) cable is 2 XLPE2. This leads to a minimum cable section of 25 mm for a copper conductor (see table below).

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 5

Conductor numbers with types of insulation

A1 A2 B1 PVC3 PVC3 PVC2 PVC2 XLPE3 XLPE2 XLPE3 XLPE2 PVC3 PVC2 XLPE3 XLPE2

B2

PVC3

PVC2

XLPE3 XLPE2

PVC3

PVC2

XLPE3

XLPE2

PVC3

PVC2

XLPE3

XLPE2

PVC3

PVC2

XLPE3

XLPE2

Required cross section

mm 1,5 2,5 4 6 10 16 25 35 50 70 95 120 150 185 240 300 2.5 4 6 10 16 25 35 50 70 95 120 150 185 240 300 11 15 20 25 34 45 59 72 86 109 130 150 171 194 227 259 11.5 15 20 27 36 46 11,5 16 21 27 37 49 64 77 94 118 143 164 188 213 249 285 12 16 21 28 38 5,050 6,161 73 13 17,5 23 30 40 54 70 86 103 130 156 188 205 233 272 311 13.5 18.5 24 32 42 54 67 80 Maximum current after temperature correction (A) 13,5 15 16 16,5 19 20 18,5 21 22 23 26 26,5 24 27 30 31 34 36 32 36 37 40 44 46 44 50 52 54 60 65 59 66 70 73 81 87 77 84 88 95 103 110 96 104 110 119 127 137 117 125 133 145 155 167 149 160 171 185 199 214 180 194 207 224 241 259 208 225 240 260 280 301 236 260 278 299 322 343 268 297 317 341 368 391 315 350 374 401 435 468 360 396 423 481 525 565 14 16 17 18 20 20 19 22 24 24 26.5 27.5 25 28 30 31 33 36 34 38 42 42 46 50 46 51 56 57 63 66 61 64 71 72 78 84 75 78 88 89 97 104 90 96 106 108 118 127 116 122 136 139 151 162 140 148 167 169 183 197 162 171 193 196.5 213 228 187 197 223 227 246 264 212 225 236 259 281 301 248 265 300 306 332 355 285 313 343 383 400 429 21 29 38 48 68 91 116 144 175 224 271 314 363 415 490 630 22 29 38 53 70 88 109 133 170 207 239 277 316 372 462 24 33 45 57 76 105 123 154 188 244 296 348 404 464 552 674 25 35 45 61 83 94 117 145 187 230 269 312 359 429 494 25 34 46 59 82 110 140 174 210 269 327 380 438 500 590 713 82 105 130 160 206 251 293 338 388 461 558

Cu

Al

Table 1 Design to maximum allowed current Applicable table for sizing the conductor.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 6

Table 2 Design to maximum allowed current Example.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 7

DESIGN TO MAXIMUM ALLOWED VOLTAGE DROP

We again use Article ITC-BT 40 of the Low Voltage Regulation: The voltage drop between the generator and the point of connection to the Public Distribution Network or indoor installations shall not exceed 1.5% at nominal current. We assume that the main DC line is responsible for 1% of the voltage drop and the remaining 0.5% corresponds to the rest of the cabling. The maximum allowed voltage drop is: e = 0.01 x 477.44 V = 4.77 V In this case, the cable section is defined as follows (this is also applicable for AC single phase):

Where L: length of the line (positive + negative) 2 x 45 = 90 m I: nominal current 81.84 A : conductivity of copper (at 70 C ) 46.82 m/.mm e: Maximum voltage drop 4.77 V
1 2

This leads to:

35 mm

RESULTING SECTION
The resulting minimum cross section is 35 mm. This cross section fulfils both criteria of the Low Voltage Regulation code (maximum current and maximum voltage drop).

We take 70 C as the approximate value resulting from an environment temperature of 50 C increased by 20 C due to conductor heating through the Joule effect.
Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013 Page 8

CALCULATION OF THE ECONOMIC SECTION

Increasing the conductor section leads to higher investment cost but also to lower losses. In this chapter we analyse the pay-back time for conductor sections larger than those defined by standards. The power losses in an electrical line are defined by: P=RI Where R is the resistance and I the current. Thus, the energy lost in a time t is: Ep = R I t The time distribution of the current follows the solar radiation (maximum during the day and zero during the night). Therefore: Ep = R(t) I(t) dt R(t) can be considered approximately constant, without significant error. In our example, we take the values of R at 70 C. Ep R I(t) dt To simplify the calculation, we will use the sum of discrete values (see the Figure 4 below). We start from the hourly incident radiation values for each month of the year (Satel-light source: http://www.satel-light.com). Ep R (Ii ti)
2

For time intervals of one hour, the final expression is: Ep R Ii

2

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 9

Figure 4 Discretization of solar radiation and current. We make the following assumptions: The current is proportional to the solar radiation The nominal current is, for a crystalline silicon module, 90% of the short-circuit current (Icc) The standard conditions of a module are given for a solar radiation of 1,000 W/m
2

The current for one array is: Ii = 0.9 x Icc Gi/1,000 = 0.9 x 7.96 x Gi/1,000 = 7.164 x 10 Gi (A) Where Gi is the solar irradiation in W/m There are 11 arrays per junction box: I(ti) = 11 x Ii = 0.078804 x Gi (A) Where I(ti) is the annual average current at the hour i on the main DC line. The energy loss in the main DC line will be: Ep R I(ti) = 0.0788042 x R Gi (kWh) And the cost of losses (energy lost and not sold at the applicable feed-in tariff (FIT)) is: Cp FIT (/kWh) x Ep (kWh) ()
2 2 2 2 -3

For this example we use the average annual current. In a more developed analysis we should proceed to the sum of the current during each single hour of the year.
Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013 Page 10

The corresponding resistance for a section of 35 mm (copper) is 0.0006102 / m (at 70 C). These values are fed into the spreadsheet as follows (see Table).

Gi Ii = 0.0788 * (W/m2) Gi (A)

I2^2 (A^2)

Pu = R35*L*Ii^2 = P = Pu*L = 0.0006102 * Pu* 90 (W) Ii^2 (W/m)

Ep = P * 365/1,000 (kWh)

Cp = 0.3 * Ep (0.3 /kWh) ()

Cp=0.44*Ep (0.44 /kWh) ()

Annual hours

Average current

Square of average current

Power loss Total power Total energy per meter of loss losses line

Cost of losses

Cost of losses

hr 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10

J 0 0 32

F 0 2

M 0 30

A 0 11

M 2 36

J 4 45

J 2 35

A 0 16

S 0 3 79

O 0 2

N 0 5

D 0 0 42 1 16 101 268 443 591 693 736 715 629 487 315 166 65 14 1 0.079 1.261 7.959 21.119 34.910 46.573 54.611 58.000 56.345 49.568 38.378 24.823 13.081 5.122 1.103 0.079 0.006 1.590 63.349 446.032 1,218.720 2,169.060 2,982.380 3,363.970 3174.743 2456.958 1472.836 616.194 171.125 26.238 1.217 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.039 0.272 0.744 1.324 1.820 2.053 1.937 1.499 0.899 0.376 0.104 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.090 3.510 24.480 66.960 119.160 163.800 184.770 174.330 134.910 80.910 33.840 9.360 1.440 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.033 1.281 8.935 24.440 43.493 59.787 67.441 63.630 49.242 29.532 12.352 3.416 0.526 0.033 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.38 2.68 7.33 13.05 17.94 20.23 19.09 14.77 8.86 3.71 1.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.56 3.93 10.75 19.14 26.31 29.67 28.00 21.67 12.99 5.43 1.50 0.23 0.01 0.00

93 166

98 139 150 136 109

55 113

178 286 352 263 298 308 304 278 237 222 299 201

10-11 330 474 530 453 468 479 482 459 419 415 459 349 11-12 450 617 668 626 611 641 649 633 571 581 579 468 12-13 522 704 741 748 737 750 785 774 704 696 629 530 13-14 545 729 749 821 812 815 857 849 785 729 611 529 14-15 503 684 719 807 797 822 877 874 790 714 534 460 15-16 400 571 618 744 730 763 822 815 719 628 396 344 16-17 253 408 456 611 608 655 695 682 581 479 222 185 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 81 196 271 447 462 497 537 505 402 296 1 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 91 269 284 322 347 314 216 116 10 104 127 157 168 133 1 0 13 0 32 0 49 7 48 6 26 0 64 3 0 10 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0

205. /mo 9 300 338 376 384 404 422 404 348 309 244 196

328

Total annual

364.142

109.24

160.22

Table 3 The length of the cable being analysed is considered to be 45 meters. Two scenarios are analysed, (1) using the former FIT of 44 c/kWh and (2) using the current FIT set at 30 c/kWh. Those lead to annual savings of 160 and 109 respectively. So now that we have determined the variable cost of energy losses, this must be compared to the investment cost of cable. For the case study section of 35 mm:

C35 = 90 x Ps + 109.23 x t Where: Ps: cable price ( / m) t: time (years)

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

()

Page 11

Generalizing for a cable of a section S: Cs = 90 x Ps + 109.23 x 35 / S x t () We can now easily calculate the payback period for each section of conductor beyond 35 mm, as well as the savings over 30 years.

FIT 0.30 /kWh Savings over 30 years = 30 x (CsC35) () 0 840 1,307 1,419 1,419 1,250 947 507

Ps (/m)

Cs = 90 x Ps + 109.23 x 35/S x t ()

Payback (years)

4.43 6.02 8.11 11.66 14.45 18.45 23.43 29.90

C35 = 398.7 + 109.23 x t C50 = 541.88 + 76.461 x t C70 = 730 + 54.61 x t C95 = 1,049.4 + 40.243 x t C120 = 1,300.5 + 31.86 x t C150 = 1,660.5 + 25.487 x t C185 = 2,108.7 + 20.665 x t C240 = 2,691 + 15.93 x t

-4.36 6.06 9.43 11.65 15.07 19.3 24.57

FIT 0.44 /kWh Savings over 30 years = 30 x (Cs-C35) () 0 1,298 2,072 2,385 2,503 2,408 2,187 1,813

Ps (/m)

Cs = 90 x Ps + 160.21 x 35/S x t ()

Payback (years)

4.43 6.02 8.11 11.66 14.45 18.45 23.43 29.90

C35 = 398.7 + 160.21 x t C50 = 541.88 + 112.147 x t C70 = 730 + 80.105 x t C95 = 1,049.4 + 59.02 x t C120 = 1,300.5 + 46.728 x t C150 = 1,660.5 + 37.382 x t C185 = 2,108.7 + 30.31 x t C240 = 2,691 + 23.364 x t

-2.98 4.13 6.43 7.94 10.27 13.16 16.75

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 12

The savings calculated here should be multiplied by 3, since the installation consists of three identical parts with a nominal power of 100 kW each. This still assumes that the three main DC lines have the same length (45 metres).

Figure 5 Life Cycle Cost of various cable sections with applicable FIT = 30 c/kWh. When the applicable feed-in tariff (FIT) is 30 c/kWh, the most economical sections are 70mm and 95mm.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 13

Figure 6 Life Cycle Cost of various cable sections with applicable FIT = 44 c/kWh . When the applicable feed-in tariff (FIT) is 44 c/kWh, the most economical sections are 95mm and 120mm. If the PV installation uses solar trackers, the pay-back time becomes even shorter. Indeed, solar trackers improve the utilization of the solar radiation (see graph below) and therefore result in a higher average current through the cables.

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 14

Figure 7 Recovered radiation according to the installation type: fix tilt 0 / fix tilt 30 / trackers (location: Valencia, Spain).

The cumulated savings achieved by applying the most economic cross section instead of the standard cross section for this installation of 100 kW and a Feed-In Tariff of 30 c/kWh, is around 4,000 (Net Present Value = 2,000 using an annual rate of 3.5%). The payback period is about six years. If the applicable Feed-In Tariff is 44 c/kWh, then the cumulated savings reach 7,000 (Net Present Value of 3,600 using an annual rate of 3.5%). The table below shows the impact of different interest rates when considering an initial overinvestment and the resulted cumulated savings over a period of 30 years.

Interest rate (%) Net Present Value (FIT 30 c/kWh) Net Present Value (FIT 44 c/kWh)

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

3,921 3,561 3,234 2,940 2,676 2,436 2,217 2,019 1,839 1,524 1,263 1,038

7,137 6,468 5,868 5,325 4,833 4,389 3,987 3,621 3,285 2,706 2,217 1,806

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 15

CONCLUSIONS
In general terms, it is always worth performing an economic cable sizing analysis. This is especially the case in renewable energy installations, since the applicable Feed-In Tariff will be higher than the wholesale market price of electricity and often higher than the consumer retail price. In addition to the improved profitability of the project, an increased cable cross section has additional advantages: Electric lines with lower load, improving the lifespan of the cables If the plant is expanded, the cables can remain in service A better response to potential short-circuits Improved Performance Ratio (PR) of the plant Associated environmental benefits (including among others, a reduction of CO2 emissions)

Publication No Cu0167 Issue Date: June 2013

Page 16