Fiji Island Dpr

8/6/2019 Fiji Island Dpr

1/14

GRID-CONNECTED SOLAR PV PROJECT - FIJI ISLANDS

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Prepared for the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO), Canberra,

Australiaby the Energy Unit of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

(SOPAC), Suva, Fiji


2/14

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................3

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................................3

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................3

4. IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................4

5. RESULTS....................................................................................................................................... 4

3.

6. OBSERVATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 6

7. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................IO

8. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................... 10

Annex 1: Fiji Electricity Authority - 10KVA Grid Connect Solar Power System -Installation and Commissioning Report

Annex 2: The FEA Monitoring/Maintenance Checklist

This report has been prepared by the Regional Energy Program based at SOPAC. Itprovides an overview of the project activities. Both BP Solar and FEA have providedinputs into the preparation of this report and have endorsed its contents. SOPACtook the initiative to start preparing this final report in late 1998 in the absence of BPSolar and FEA fully meeting their final reporting commitments.

2


3/14

1. INTRODUCTION

On the 6th of June 1996, the South Pacific Forum Secretariat (SPFS) and theAustralian Department of the Environment, Sports and Territories (DEST) signed agrant contract, under which, DEST initially provided AUD200, 000 for two pilot phase

Joint Implementation Projects. The grant was to be disbursed equally for a Grid-Connected Photovoltaic (PV) Project in Fiji and an Efficient Lighting Project in theSolomon Islands.

In April 1997, the two parties signed an addendum agreeing to an increase in thebudget for the Grid-Connected PV project by AUD3000. This increase was to enableBP Solar to purchase computer software, modem and standby battery to facilitate themonitoring of the system by BP Solar from Sydney, Australia. Of this AUD3000,AUD2680 was allocated to the Grid-Connected PV Project and the balance ofAUD140 was allocated to the Air Conditioner Efficiency Project.

Following the transfer of the Regional Energy Program to SOPAC in January 1998, it

was agreed by the two-

parties to transfer all the SPFS's obligations to the SouthPacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC). In response to SOPAC's requestfor additional funds to make up for the effects of the early 1998 devaluation of the Fijidollar on the two pilot phase projects budget, an extra AUD14,000 was allocated tothe program.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objective of the Grid-Connected PV Project was to design, implement, monitorand evaluate a Grid-Connected PV Project in the Fiji Islands in accordance with theguidelines and criteria of the Climate Change: Australian Pilot-Phase JointImplementation Program. The project was also to determine the feasibility of

reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the use of a grid tied PV power system. Theproject also seeks to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of this newpower technology to supplement traditional sources of electric power. It is expectedthat the local power utility (Fiji Electricity Authority - FEA) will gather valuableoperating experience about both integrating the intermittent power provided by PVsystems, and about the operation of distributed generation systems (such as thisone), with their grid.

3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Most Pacific Island power utilities generate power with diesel generators, whichcontribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even those utilities, which use

hydropower often, use diesel power to cover the summertime, daytime peak loads(this has been the case with the FEA on the main island of Viti Levu). Photovoltaicpower systems produce their greatest output at these times. Power from these PVpower system is also becoming cheaper as development continues.

The system utilises 10 kW of solar photovoltaic modules constructed frommonocrystalline cells. The solar modules are roof mounted on a fixed array frameand are electrically configured to feed DC power at 120 Volts DC into a grid tied (linecommutated) sine wave inverter, rated at 10 kW. The output from the inverter isconnected via conductors (frequency and voltage range limited) for utility protection.

Was later changed to an Air Conditioner Efficiency Project during the project design phase.

3


4/14

The design of the project was based on the climatic conditions around the project sitein the last years. Table 2 shows the mean monthly solar insolation used in theproject design. The anticipated weight of CO2 to be mitigated by this project was

based on a conversion factor of .75kg per kWh of diesel-generated power. EverykWh produced by the solar array was therefore assumed to have displaced a similar

kWh of diesel-generated power and thus the fuel used to produce that kWh.

The FEA Navutu depot at Lautoka was chosen as the project host. This was basedmainly on the availability of FEA technical staff to maintain and monitor the project,the availability of a large roof area to hold the solar panels and the easy integration ofthe DC power into the FEA grid system.

4. IMPLEMENTATION

FEA technicians under the supervisionof a BP Solar engineer carried out installationof the project. On the completion of the installation and the commissioning of theproject, BP Solar ran a one-day training workshop with the technical staff of FEA.The Forum Secretariat Energy Division participated in this workshop. The workshopcovered a brief description of how the system works, trouble shooting, maintenanceand a demonstration of how to download data from the system via the modem. Thedemonstration was not successful and unfortunately the BP Solar engineer had toleave Fiji without successfully completing this vital component of the projectinstallation and commissioning.

A copy of the installation and the commissioning report is attached as Annex 1.

5. RESULTS

The monitoring of the project was carried out by FEA and commenced following thecommissioning, from November 1997. The monitoring has continued up to end of

October 1998, which was the period agreed to under the project's MOU. Additionally,BP Solar was also to monitor the performance of the system via the installed modem.FEA monitored the system and has report on its performance on a weekly basisduring this period. Annex 2 provides a sample of the form used by FEA formonitoring the system. Besides collecting the readings on the system and checkingon its physical condition, FEA also collected climatic data from both Nadi and

Lautoka. This climatic data has been used as a basis to compare the actual outputsfrom the project with its designed output.

In the preparation of this report, BP Solar has only provided 3 months of data fromthemonitoring it has carried out via the installed modem. This has been due to anextended period where problems with the modem have prevented downloading of the

data remotely and as a consequence records lost. It is understood that the modemhas been reprogrammed and properly installed and it has started functioning inFebruary 1999 and records are now being logged.

Climatic Conditions

Table 1 and Chart 1 show that on average there were more sunshine hours duringthe project's monitoring period as compared to the average monthly sunshine hoursfor 1972-97 used in the design to predict the expected output. It was only in themonths of January and September 1998 that the average sunshine hours were lower

than the average recorded for 1972-97

4


5/14


6/14

The data collected on solar insolation, though based on data for Nadi, showed thatthe actual accumulated solar insolation recorded during the monitoring period was, intotal, slightly more favourable than the data, which was used as the basis for the

project design. On the twelve months of monitoring, the monitored solar insolationwas less than the design data in six of the months. This was most notable in the

months of May to September. Table 2 and Chart 2 show the solar insolationcondition under which the project has been operating as compared to the basis forthe project design.

While the climatic conditions for the project have been more favourable than theconditions upon which the project design was based, the project output in terms ofthe kWh produced and therefore the kg of CO2 mitigated, has been below theexpectations from the project. Table 3 and Chart 3 show that the output from theprojecthas been less than its designed output during all the months of monitoring.

Based on the climatic data collected and the monitoring reports from FEA, there arestrong reasons to believe that the under-performance of this project is due to

technical issues which could have been resolved had the project been designed andmanaged diffrently. The unavailability of a complete set of data monitored remotelyby BP Solar has not enabled a full diagnosis of the project. In the first instance thisdata could have been productively used to verify the data collected by FEA. Thetechnical and managerial issues that surrounded the performance of this project arediscussed under Observations in Section 6.

Based on a project cost of AUD102860 and 9539 kg of CO mitigated during themonitoring period, the cost per kg of CO mitigated is AUD10.78. It is likely that thiscost could be significantly seduced with a much larger project.

6. OBSERVATIONS

While the project has performed below its designed level of output, it is also obviousthat this failure is largely administrative in nature. This has been brought about by themanner in which the project has been designed and implemented. The following areidentified as some of the major areas that should have been addressed in the designand implementation of the project:

The need for the project to have originated from its recipients

While it is appreciated that this only a pilot demonstration project, that in

itself should not weaken the critical need that the recipients of the projectshould clearly identify that this project is a reflection of one of their priorityneeds and thus their commitment to the project.

In this project, it is obvious that it was not a reflection of some priority

strategies for FEA. The project was successful in getting FEA to agree to it

and therefore their endorsement of the project's MOU but on FEA's side itappeared not to be a high priority project for them.

Nadi is more than 5 km from the project site and is not considered significant, as the weather patterns

in each location are typically similar.This is the actual amount paid to BP Solar. It does not include SOPAC's project management and

coordination costs.

6


7/14


8/14


9/14

The need for the project to actually demonstrate that it would be ofsignificant direct benefit to its recipients and thus the sustainability ofthe project

The recipient of the project was FEA and the potential benefit from this project(10 kW) was insignificant as compared to the scale of the power generation atthe project site. At the project site, it would not make any difference to FEAwhether the project worked or not. The lack of commitment by FEA to the

monitoring, maintenance and the reporting on this project was therefore adirect reflection of how significant the project has been to its operations.This can be compared to an arrangement where the project is located at asite where the project's power output would constitute the major power supply

to a community. Such an arrangement would have kept FEA stronglycommitted to the project since power has to be supplied to the communityand secondly, the community would strongly participate if there were certainroles for them to play.

The need for the equipment to be supplied on an open competitivetender based on a emission reduction project at the actual project site

The supply of equipment to this project was done on an open, competitivetender basis, however, it was not based on the exact project site. An earlydetermination of the exact project site would have provided some usefulguiding information as to who would the consultant be working with, the majorpre-occupation at the project site and the magnitude of the project ascompared with that at the host site. These should have provided bidders withsome ideas as to the risks they will be facing and therefore adjust theircosting accordingly. The problems with the modem existed for an extendedperiod of time, yet, it was noted that a technician from BP Solar was not sent

to the project site to quickly sort out the problems. This is partly due to theabsence of a budget line that would allow for trouble shooting and meetingsuch monitoring costs from this project budget line.

No arrangement to enforce product warranties

The project cost (more than 90%) was mostly in the supply of hardware. Anyhardware-based project should have taken all necessary steps to ensure thatthe supplier is bound by the technical specifications of its products, at leastduring the monitoring period. This was absent from the implementation of this

project.

Relate the supplier's contract to the project output

This project was to determine the feasibility of reducing greenhouse gasemissions by the use of grid tied PV power systems. It was to prove that apiece of technology could produce a designed output under certain climatic

conditions. Since the onus is on the technology to provide the designedoutput, the financial renumeration of the supplier (who in this project was alsothe installer) should have been tied to the performance of his installed

products.

9


10/14

7. CONCLUSIONS

This project has demonstrated that power from a renewable energy source such assolar can be fed into a power system that produces power from conventional meanssuch as diesel generators and hydropower. With the appropriate project size and

site, the affected recipient community and the host organization (the power utility)could better appreciate the impacts of this type of project.

PV grid connected projects are technically capable of reducing fossil fuels that areused for power generation and therefore it could be used as a tool for mitigatingclimate change. The cost per kg of CO2 mitigated may appear to be high, but for alarger scale project which is supplied and installed on an open and cost competitivebasis based on the actual project site and which contract renumeration is tied to theproject output costs could be significantly reduced.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the experience with this project, the following recommendations are made:

(i) that FEA and BP Solar continue to monitor the project for a further 12 months

to allow a comparison of the FEA and the BP Solar data and to properlyassess the technical performance of the equipment supplied. BP Solar hasverbally indicated its interest and is prepared to continue with the monitoringof the project;

that future projects of this nature be based on open competitive bids where

the exact project site is known and that renumeration be based on projectsystem against design output; and

that future projects of this nature be managed and monitored by people (or

their representatives) whom the project would be of significant benefit to.

(ii)

(iii)

10


11/14

Annex 1

FIJI ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

10kVA GRIDCONNECTSOLAR POWER SYSTEM

INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONINGREPORT

Introduction

The objective of the project is to design, implement, monitor and evaluate a gridconnected photovoltaic project in the Fiji Islands in accordance with the guidelinesand criteria of the Climate Change: Australian Pilot-Phase Joint ImplementationProgram.

The project will also determine the feasibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

by the use of grid connected photovoltaic (PV) power systems, whilst at the sametime demonstrating the technical and economic viability of this new power technologyto supplement traditional sources of electric power.

(Memorandum of Understanding - Pilot-Phase Joint Implementation Projects in thePacific Islands South Pacific Forum Secretariat- 13th March 1997)

The FEA 10kVA grid connect solar power system is designed to provide a maximumof 10kVA of 240V, 50Hz electricity into the local electricity grid. Under normaloperating conditions the system is fully automatic and requires minimal operatorinput.

Installation

Installation of the 10kVA system was carried out by BP Solar Australia electricianPeter Bradfield and a number of FEA employees. The installation of the systemcommenced Monday 20th October and was completed on Friday 24th October.

The installation was carried out in three stages. The three stages and theapproximate installation time are detailed below:

. Installation of the roof mounted unistrut frame (2.0 day),

. Installation and electrical connection of the solar laminates (2.5 day),

. Installation of the solar array dc isolation panel, interconnection protection paneland inverter (0.5 day).

Four of the unistrut sections had been damaged during transport to Fiji and theunistrut frame layout was modified slightly to cater for this. BP Solar Australia will

review the method of packing used for the unistrut sections to alleviate this problemin the future.

During installation one solar laminate was damaged and was replaced with one ofthe spares. Given the number of solar laminates installed and their fragile nature

(without an aluminium frame), damaging only one laminate clearly demonstrates theability of the installation team.

Project drawings have been up dated to detail the as built system. The updated

drawings are included in the appendix of this report.

11


12/14

Commissioning

Commissioning of the system was carried out by BP Solar Australia engineer StuartMorrall on Thursday 20th November. Assistance in the commissioning was providedby FEA staff.

Training for Forum Secretariat and FEA staff was carried out on Friday 21stNovember.

Commissioning of the system was carried out in four stages:

l Inspection of the system to ensure correct installation,. Completion of minor electrical connections, namely solar array connections in the

inverter and connectionofthe reference cell,l Testing and commissioning of the system as per the commissioning procedure,. Testing of the remote data acquisition capability.

Electrical Connections

The circuit breaker isolating the inverter from the grid had been installed in theinterconnection protection panel and incorrectly wired. This circuit breaker shouldhave been installed on the main switchboard to allow complete isolation from the gridwas available.

The connection to the grid is made via this circuit breaker and a separate isolationswitch on the switchboard. Complete isolation from the grid is achieved by operatingthe isolation switch on theswitchboard.

FEA staff rewired t he incorrectly wired circuit breaker and were instructed that theisolation switch on the switch board was to be used to isolate the system from the

grid when necessary.

The reference cell was initially connected to the incorrect analogue terminals. Thiscan be seen on the retrieved data as incorrect array kWh". The reference cell wasconnected to thecorrect terminalslateFriday21st November.

Commissioning and Testing

The system was tested for operation during simulated failure of the grid by isolatingitself from the grid and then reconnecting and sychronising when the grid was re-energised.

The operation of the inverter with the FEA back up generator was tested. The grid

supply to the main switchboard was removed and replaced with the back upgenerator. The system operated correctly by disconnecting itself from theswitchboard when the mains was removed and then reconnecting and synchronisingto the generator after it had been running for at least 1 minute.

The inverter was seen to operate correctly at all times.

12


13/14

Remote Data Acquisition CapabilityThe remote data acquisition capability was tested using a Dell laptop computer andthe FEA telephone system. Problems were encountered in retrieving the inverterdata using the FEA telephone system.Tests were also carried out by BP Solar Australia in Sydney. All attempts to retrievethe inverter data from Sydney were successful.It is suspected that the problems encountered at the FEA were caused by problemswith their internal telephone system.System PerformanceSystem data was obtained from the inverter on Wednesday 26th November 1997.A summary of the system performance to date is tabled below:Date Inverter CO2 Array Inverter InverterTotal Savings 4 Total Maximum Connect

Energy Energy Power Time(kWh) (kg) (kWh) (kW) (Hours)20/11/97 31.2 23.4 N/A" 6.80 7.5

21/11/97 49.4' 37.0 N/Au 7.36 11.422/11/97 43.5 32.6 44.9 8.33 12.023/11/97 49.2 36.9 50.9 6.82 11.824/11/97 50.8 38.1 52.2 7.18 11.825/11/97 47.1 35.3 48.7 7.55 12.1Total 1 271.2/45.2 203.3/33.9 N/A 1 49.2 44.04/7.34 66.6/11.1AverageAs can be seen from the table, the solar power system has, to 25/11/97, generated atotal of 271.2 kWh, which has resulted in the reduction in CO2 production of 203.3kg.

4 Based on Forum Secretariat figure of O. 75kg / kWh of electricity from diesel generatorsNot applicable due to incorrect connection of reference cell

6 Not applicable due to incorrect connection of reference cell '.'

13


14/14

Annex 2: The FEA Monitoring/Maintenance Checklist

Grid connected Solar Energy UnitFEA NavutuDaily Date Remarks Initials

1 Circuit breaker position Tripped ONIf tripped reset Yes No2 Modem ON Off

If off put it on .No Yes3 Energy meter kWh

Weekly (Every last working day of the Date Remarks Initialsweek)1 Check solar modules Clean DirtyCleaned if dirty -Yes No

2 "Off' the inverter before starting back Yes Noup generator3 "On" the inverter after stopping back up Yes Nogenerator4 DC isolation switch "off' & "on" three Yes Notimes5 Protection panel switch "off' Yes No

6 Protection panel switch "on" Yes No7 Time taken to energize (60 seconds)8 Safety signs in place Yes No9 Weekly sunshine hours

Checked by:Supervisor:

,

Documents

Fiji Island Dpr