1

Sizing of Distributed Generation Plant Through

Techno-Economic Feasibility Assessment
Sree L. Payyala, Student Member, IEEE, and Tim C. Green, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract--A methodology is proposed for the techno-economic

assessment of a biomass power plant. The economic aspects of
the assessment involve determining the economically optimal size
of a given biomass power plant depending on resource related
costs and, in turn, the economic viability of the project. The
technical aspects of the assessment check for the possibility that,
in the given distribution network, the economically optimal plant
might cause breaches of limits on line flow, voltage, fault current
or power loss. A breach would lead to a curtailment of plant
capacity in steps so as to avoid that breach. The curtailed plant
sizes are reassessed for economic viability. In the case of line
active power loss, the sensitivity of loss to each Distributed
Generation (DG) plant location and size can be used to select
candidate DG sites for curtailment. Cost-based and sensitivitybased plant capacity curtailments have been tested on the same
UK distribution network models and the resulting DG placement
solutions compared.
Index Terms-- Biomass, Distributed Generation, Generation
Planning, Net present value of power plant, Optimal DG
capacity, Power system planning, Techno-economic assessment.

I. INTRODUCTION

istributed generation (DG) is appearing in networks

either because it is a means of avoiding network
reinforcement or because it is a means of exploiting some
energy resource which by its nature is small and distributed.
Such small and distributed energy sources are often renewable
energy sources but need not be. The integration of distributed
generation into distribution networks has been the subject of
growing interest [1]-[2].
Biomass mass is one of the promising renewable sources
which is beginning to be taken up in several countries. The
main advantage of biomass based power generation is that the
cycle of growth and combustion of biomass has zero level
CO2 production [3]-[4]. It is a resource which, because of its
low energy density, can not be transported long distances
without incurring unreasonable cost. It is therefore a
distributed resource and an example of a generation
technology for which choosing an appropriate plant size is key
to its economic viability.
Some specific research has been conducted on the issues
for biomass based power generation. A pre-feasibility method

Sree L. Payyala is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Imperial

College, London, UK (e-mail: sree.payyala@imperial.ac.uk).
Tim C. Green is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Imperial
College, London, UK (e-mail: t.green@imperial.ac.uk).

1-4244-0493-2/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE.

was applied to a biomass power plant [5]-[6] to calculate

optimal size of the plant. Some investigations focused on the
optimal size and other studies on the maximum possible DG
size that can be introduced at each node in a distribution
network [7]-[10]. A controllable DG capacity model was
proposed to help control voltage in the given network [11].
Each of the above works have individually dealt with either
technical or economic aspects of the biomass power plant.
However, little work has been carried out in the area of
integrating technical and economical aspects during design
stages. Such a combined assessment would help determine the
plant size that is acceptable to the Distribution Network
Operator (DNO) and also profitable for the DG owner [12][13].
This paper provides a methodology for performing a
combined Techno-Economic assessment of biomass-fuelled
generators. It aims at calculating the optimal plant size and
location that is justified in terms of economic as well as
technical considerations. The suggested approach is tested on
a realistic network model, a part of UK distribution network in
East Anglia.
II. ISSUES CONCERNING DG PLANNING
This section discusses the issues associated with DG size
and location that are of particular interest to either the DG
owner or the DNO.
A. From the perspective of a DG owner
Right sizing and correctly locating new DG are the two
crucial factors during initial stages of DG planning. These
initial design factors allow the developer to reap maximum
benefit from a DG plant project. This is of particular
significance for DG plants whose fuel resources and not zerocost and must also be transported (unlike like wind and solar
plants).
During the planning undertaken by a developer, a
feasibility study should provide all data and details necessary
to take a decision to invest in the project. The analysis takes
note of the availability and location of biomass resource and
the fuel supply chain. This supply chain is crucial in
determining the costs involved. The profitability of the project
is the deciding factor to go ahead with the proposed project.
B. From the perspective of a DNO
The present distribution systems were designed to accept
bulk power from the transmission system and distribute it to
the local loads/customers. However, significant penetration of

DG into a network may overturn the power flows assumed in

planning the network and cause operational problems that
require the passive network to be made active. The DNO will
be concerned to maintain network safety and to ensure that the
introduction of DG does not cause problems to nearby
electricity users [13]. In particular, the DNO will want to see
that the added DG does not cause operational problems by
ensuring that the proposed capacity does not cause any
technical breach. From the operational point of view, the
DNO will also seek to reduce real power loss in specific
networks.
From the perspectives of both the DG owner and the DNO,
it is clear that the plant size is crucial not only in determining
the profits earned but also in minimizing any adverse effects
the DG may have on the distribution network. Through
careful planning and design, the DG owner and DNO can
ensure that the new generation scheme does not cause
problems to the DNO and also gives greater economic benefit
to the developer.

approaches, the plant capacity is curtailed until the no-breach

situation is achieved. The resulting size of DG has been set by
the concerns of DNO, however, the economic worthiness of
the new plant size must be verified by a further economic
assessment as also shown in Figure 1.
In brief, the first step of the techno-economic assessment
is to assess the plant size that maximizes the profitability of
the project. The second step is to check if this DG size would
cause a breach of one of several network limitations. If it
does, the plant size is curtailed in a step by step procedure so
as to avoid the breach. Thus, the economically optimal size is
technically constrained. The third step repeats the economic
assessment to see if the new constrained plant size is still
economical.
Start

Optimal P dgo, at each feasible

node is calculated in
economic assessment .

III. THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

One of the main challenges confronting the electrical
industry is the lack of a well defined technical and commercial
framework for planning of efficient integration of an optimal
level of DG capacity into distribution networks. In this study,
an attempt has been made to formulate a techno-economic
feasibility assessment method as an efficient planning tool that
facilitates integration of DG into a network. The high level
integration issues of technical and economic assessments are
presented in the subsection below and in the flow chart. The
low level technical and economic feasibility assessment
processes and the detailed methods of evaluation are
explained in the subsequent sub sections.
A. Techno-Economic feasibility assessment
The proposed techno-economic feasibility assessment
starts with the economic assessment, as shown in the flow
chart in Figure 1, where the optimal plant size, Pdgo is
determined solely by economic considerations. This DG plant
of optimal size is then introduced into the given distribution
network and checked for any possible breaches of technical
limitations of the network. In cases where there are breaches,
the proposed plant capacity is reduced to Pdg in steps in an
algorithmic program so as to avoid the breach. In cases of
multiple proposed DGs in an area, the DG that most likely to
have caused the breach is identified and its capacity is
curtailed. This DG is identified using one of the following
indices: the voltage sensitivity index (VSI), the loss index, the
electrical proximity of DG to the fault or the contribution to
flow in the limited line.
In the case of the loss breach, two different approaches to
capacity curtailment have been explored. One is based on the
loss index itself and the other is based on biomass production
cost. Loss index based capacity curtailment is aimed at
minimizing the active power loss in the given network. The
cost based approach is aimed at minimizing the specific
biomass production costs, and in turn the resource based costs,
so as to maximize the net economic benefit. In both

Input Pdgo, Power Factor of DG

and System annual load level .

Solve Initial Load Flow and

Fault Levels (No DG case)

Is back feed
limit exceeded? ( for
DG case)

Yes
Curtail plant capacity to avoid
the reverse power flow

No
Solve for load flows
and fault levels (for
DG case)

Technical feasibility assessment

process and curtailment of capacity if
breach occurs (see Figure 2 for details)

Re-evaluate economic performance

indicator : NPV of DG plant for plant
life time. Assess the economic
viability.

Finish

Fig. 1. Flow chart depicting the proposed Techno-Economic assessment

methodology

The proposed methodology is applicable to other types of

DG plants; however, the economic assessment may vary
depending on the type of resource from which power
generation takes place.
B. Technical assessment
The technical part of the assessment determines the

capacity of DG plant that is acceptable to the DNO,

considering the network limits and the power losses in the
given distribution network. Hence, the DNO will need to
analyze the site-specific effect of the proposed DG capacity
on the distribution network to which it will be connected. In
line with the UK DNO requirements, this study performs the
technical assessment through network system studies such as
load flow determination and fault current calculations.
Figure 2 illustrates the process of technical assessment in
detail and the order in which the technical breaches are
checked for and the identification and initiation of corrective
action depending on the type of breach. The Power Systems
Toolbox running in Matlab is used for programming purposes.
The load flow study yielded the current flows in each
branch of the network together with the sending and receiving
end real and reactive power flows for each line, the voltage
conditions at each bus, the voltage boost at each voltage
controlled bus and the active power losses [14]. Fault level
analysis calculates the maximum fault currents within a
system for a short circuit at any bus [15]. A three phase fault
will produce the largest fault current and so was chosen as the
test case for a possible breach of switchgear ratings. A
function for running fault studies within Matlab has been
used. DG of the economically optimal size is introduced into
the given distribution network and tested for possible breach
of the thermal ratings of equipment, the voltage deviation
caused by the power flow, fault current in excess of the
switchgear limits, possible reverse power flow through
substations and increase/decrease in active power losses. In
our study, these constraints are modeled as inequality
constraints and are taken into account during this technical
assessment.
According to the UK network regulations, voltages at all
33kV buses must stay within the statutory ( 6%) limits on the
primary side of the 33 kV transformer. At any bus, i

Line flow in each line (between i and j) is maintained

within the line thermal ratings.

I ij I ij m a x

(2 )

The three phase fault current in each line must be less than
the fault design rating of the switchgear on that line.

IFij IFijdesign

( 3)

System active power losses are not allowed to increase

beyond the no DG loss limit.
loss ( withDG )

ij

loss ( noDG )

i =1

PLi

i =1

Are
constraints breached ?
(Loss, line flow, voltage,
fault current )
Curtail DG size at
marked DG by unit
size.

Yes

Mark the DG with

the highest fuel
Yes
production cost or
loss index

+ Ploss %
i =1

No
Technically
constrained DG
sizes

Is loss flag set?

Return
No

Detect the DG
nearest to that line Yes
and mark it.

Is line flow flag

set?

No
Run VSI program .
The DG with
Yes
highest VSI is
marked.

Is voltage flag set?

No
Detect the DG
nearest to the fault
and mark it.

Yes

Is Fault flag set?

(4)

ij

Reverse power flow back into the grid is restricted to

zero by limiting DG capacity not to exceed the total average
load on the system.

PGi

Enter

(1)

V i min V i V i max

a feeder group are more than the load (plus loss) for the feeder
group, the surplus plant capacity is shed at the plant with
largest biomass production cost (/kWh).
A Voltage Sensitivity Index (VSI) is used to identify the
plant that may have caused the voltage flag to set. Voltage
sensitivity index is defined as
V
V
VSI = w
+ (1 w)
(6)
P
Q
Where w, is the weighting factor depending on, line
reactance to resistance (X/R) ratio. The voltage sensitivity to
real power is greater than its sensitivity to reactive power for
low X/R lines found in low voltage distribution. Voltage
sensitivity is important in understanding the effect of the DG
capacity on the voltage of lines. This index is used in the
current study to identify the most sensitive DG bus location.

(5)

During the initial stages, if the DG capacities proposed for

Fig. 2. Sub program depicting the technical assessment part

C. Economic optimization
In this section, the economic assessment of a biomass
power plant is discussed in detail. Economic assessment is
performed by the evaluation of economic performance
indicators such as Net Present Value (NPV) and Profitability
Index (PI). In this study, the radius of the biomass fuel

catchment area for a given site is optimized so as to maximize

the profitability index. The optimal radius will in turn dictate
the biomass resource collected and consequently determines
the biomass power plant optimal size. This method assumes
that the biomass is uniformly harvested in a circular area and
the investment and plant production costs are a function of the
electrical power produced. This analysis maximizes the PI
thus leading to an optimal radius value of catchment area and
hence optimal power plant size. The profitability index is
based on a conventional cash flow procedure [2]. The
optimization that follows is based on the method reported in
[1] and is laid out in the following sub sections. A biomass
power plant is considered for power generation in our study.
The complete economic modeling of a biomass power plant
used in our study is presented below.
1) Plant costs:
The annual outlay of a biomass power plant is modeled as a
sum of a fixed cost CF, plus two variable costs CBio and COM.
COM is the operation and maintenance cost and CBio is the
supply cost of the biomass fuel, which itself is the sum of the
production and preparation cost of the biomass, CP and its
transport cost, CT. CBio and COM are expressed as functions of
plant capacity P.
CTotal = CBio ( P ) + COM ( P ) + CF
(7)
where
CBio ( P ) = CP ( P ) + CT ( P )
COM ( P ) =

and

(8)
P CI

(9)

The operation and maintenance cost is considered to be

proportional to the plant size and is calculated as a fraction, K
of the product of the electrical power capacity of the plant, P
and the unitary power plant investment CI in /MW.
The production cost of the biomass fuel CP in equation (8)
is expressed in terms of specific production cost in /ton of
the biomass yield in ton/year for the catchment radius, r in
Km.
CP ( P ) = CspY
(10 )
where

Y = r2 d

(11)

and d is the density of the available biomass

in
tons/year/km. Similarly the biomass transportation cost CT is
given by:
CT ( P ) = Cst 23 r 3 d
(12 )
where Cst is the specific transport cost in /kg/km.
2) Plant revenues:
The annual plant revenues earned are evaluated as follows.
The annual revenue Ra earned from selling electrical energy at
a sale price of U /MWh is:
Ra = E U
(13)
The annual energy production in MWh/year, is defined as
a product of the average Lower Heat Value, LHV of the
biomass fuel, the global power plant efficiency, e and the
available quantity of biomass, Y.

(14 )

E = e LHV Y

The electrical rating of the generator suitable for the

catchment radius considered is then calculated from the
annual energy production divided by the normalized plant
running time, t in hours/year.
P = E
(15)
t
3) Economic performance indicators:
The economic viability of a power project is reflected
through the following economic indicators.
The calculation of net present value is the most important
aspect in project evaluation and its positive estimation at a
designed discount rate, i is essential before going ahead with a
project. The net present value is calculated by discounting the
net benefits stream into its present value.
The Net Present Value is defined as
NPV = a ( Ra CTotal ) P C I
(16 )
The annuity index, a, is a function of the discount rate, i
and the plant life, n (in years) and is given by:
a =

(1 + i )n 1
n
i (1 + i )

(17 )

The Profitability Index of the investment is the ratio of the

net present value to the total investment:
PI = NPV
(18 )
P CI
An optimal catchment radius, ropt is calculated that
maximizes the PI [1]. It is given by:
3C
ropt = 3 F
dCst

(19 )

Substituting (10) in equation (2.1) and updating equations

(5) and (6), resulted in the determination of optimal plant size,
P of biomass generator.
The economic performance of a plant is very much
sensitive to the discount rate, electricity sale price and other
biomass costs assumed during the assessment. Hence in this
study, the sensitivity of the economic performance indicators
for a range of variation in discount rate, electricity sale price
are investigated by further sensitivity studies. The plant size
that is determined in this procedure takes no account of the
electrical network into which it will need to be introduced and
assumes that all the power produced could be exported to the
network to earn revenues. This study assumes that the biomass
generator is used for power production, neglecting any
thermal energy production.
IV. RESULTS
The results obtained by application of the proposed
methodology to the case study network are realized and
represented in two stages. The first stage is the exclusive
technical assessment that helped build understanding of the
maximum headroom available for DG at each bus of the
network. At this stage no economic evaluation is carried out.

11 BB

BSP
March 132 BB

Chatteris 11 BB
Whittlesey 11 BB

Whittlesey
T1
Whittlesey T2

NOP

To Peterborough
Central Grid BSP

NOP

Whitt 33 BB

Chatteris T2

Chatteris T1

March T1

March 11 BB

March T2

March local
Grid 33 BB

Littleport T1

Littleport T2

Upwell 11 BB

Upwell 33 BB

Upwell T2

To Swaffham
Grid BSP

NOP
Southery T1

Southery 11 BB

Southery 33 BB
t r opel tti L

B. Technical only assessment Case study

The technical assessment involved two cases, a single DG
case and a multiple DG case of combinations of different DG
sizes. The proposed DG in these cases is equal to the annual
maximum demand on the given network. The intention in
proposing to introduce a DG with a capacity equal to the total
demand in the March area is to estimate the maximum DG that
can be absorbed into the network without technical violations.
This technical assessment is an important process step and is
carried out as curtailment algorithm shown in Figure 2 in the
second stage of the techno-economic assessment.
1) Single DG case:
The network around the town of March as shown in the
Figure 3 is considered to have 6 feasible buses where biomass
plants can be sited. The maximum quantity of DG that can be
injected at each bus has been evaluated, without breaching
line, voltage, loss and fault limits. At all buses in Table I the
maximum DG that can be introduced safely is well less than
the maximum demand in the area. This is due to the hitting of
loss and line constraints (usually coincident) that the DG size

33 BB

A. Case Study Network

The example system studied here is the East Anglia region
of south east England. It is a typical distribution system and it
takes most if its power from the transmission network through
22 grid substations at 132 kV. The 132 kV sub-transmission
system supplies 81 Bulk Supply Point (BSP) substations
(132/33 kV or 132/11 kV). The 33 kV network then feeds
500 primary substations (33/11 kV) which in turn supply
approximately 60,000 secondary substations (11/0.415 kV).
The possibility of connecting DG to all the 11 kV nodes in
this system is remote and is therefore not considered. The
33 kV electrical network of the system is the object of this
study because it is the most suitable connection voltage for
most medium and large renewable schemes. Medium sized
schemes are often connected to 11 kV bus bars at a primary
substation and can be considered as contributing to part of the
renewable generation capacity at the 33 kV bus. The 33 kV
network is very likely to receive significant quantities of DG
without the voltage tolerance limits becoming the limiting
factor. In many cases, it has been instead the line flow limits
or losses that have limited introduction of DG.
The complete network of East Anglia has been divided into
subsystems taking into consideration the normally open points
in the network and a part of that is that supplying the town of
March and its surrounding area, shown in Figure 3. In this
network, all of the power required to meet local load plus
losses of 5% is assumed to be met by the grid/slack bus of the
area under consideration.
All DG plants are assumed to be operating at unity power
factor. To reduce the complexity of analysis, the annual
maximum demand on the network subsystem has been
considered. Only active power losses are taken into account
throughout this study.

has to be limited to the values shown in Table I. The safe

maximum capacity that can be introduced at any bus is
predominantly governed by line impedances, consequent line
flows and resulting active power losses and the location of bus
with respect to load distribution and network configuration.

t r opel tti L

In the second stage the combined techno-economic feasibility

assessment was applied.

Fig. 3. March network 33kV diagram

However in some situations, the DG site and size are resource

/ availability constrained rather than load constrained.
In this single DG case, the loss constraint is set at 0%
increase in system active power losses with DG compared to
the no DG situation. The results obtained with DG equal to
100% load applied to each bus in the March grid are shown in
Table I.
TABLE I
SAFE MAXIMUM DG CAPACITY LEVELS AT EACH INDIVIDUAL BUS

With DG
@bus

None
March
Local
Upwell
Littleport

BSP
import
(MW)

Constrained
& Safe DG
(MW)

76.20

Constraints activated

Active
loss
(MW)

Bac
k
feed

Lin
e

Los
s

No

No

No

2.56

20.94

55.26

No

No

Yes

2.56

42.57

33.62

No

Yes

Yes

2.55

45.96

30.20

No

Yes

Yes

2.52

Whittelesey
Chatteris

52.40

23.72

No

Yes

Yes

2.48

44.18

32.00

No

Yes

Yes

2.54

31.83

44.32

No

Yes

Yes

2.51

A single DG can cause a voltage rise at the neighboring

buses and possibly beyond that. This effect can be used to
improve the voltage profile on long sections of rural network
where voltage levels are at their lowest limit. However, the
use of renewable generation merely as a producer of power
means that this is unlikely. It is more probable that the voltage
rise will be problematic in that the upper voltage tolerance
limit may be exceeded. Generators operating with a leading
power factor may also compound this problem. In all the
tested cases, the increase in voltage lies well within the
statutory voltage limits (6%) for distribution networks in the
UK.
In our study when the voltage flag is set when the limit has
been exceeded and the Voltage Sensitivity Index is calculated
to identify the DG plant size that is most sensitive to voltage
and its capacity is reduced to bring back the voltage into
acceptable range.
2) Multiple DG case:
An attempt has been made to site multiple DG plants at
different combinations of nodes in the example distribution
network. When DG is injected at more than one site in the
network, it led to significant decrease in active power losses
for some site and size combinations. For example, the
combinations in Table II show significant reduction in active
power losses which the DNO is expected to welcome. Each
case (A, B and C in Table II) uses a different combination of
economically optimal DG sizes at the specified buses (March
local, Upwell and Chatteris). All three cases show a fair
decline in losses with the injection of DG and no breaches of
technical limits. The only constraint that limited the DG
capacity was the back feed limit. The back feed constraint
allows a DG size that is just equal to system load plus a loss of
5%. The fact that this combination of DG site and size did not
cause line or loss breach does not imply that all choices will
perform so well. For example the Table III uses example cases
D, E and F where both line and loss limits are violated. The
DG sizes in Table III are the assumed economically optimal
sizes introduced at the stated buses. On finding the violation
of loss or line limits, the DG sizes were curtailed from optimal
to a lower value. The process continued as step curtailment
and stopped when the DG size causes no more breach.
A comparison of effect of DG site and size on losses (Table
II and III) is made in the Figure 4. Cases D, E and F introduce
DG at busses with relatively small local loads and relatively
distant for the busses with high loads. The buses wit high
loads are those close to the bulk supply point. This helps to
explain why the unconstrained DG placement led to
significant increases in network losses.

C. Techno-Economic assessment Case study

The proposed Techno-Economic feasibility assessment
methodology was also applied to March network. Due to lack
of availability of data of biomass resource in the considered
region, the economic assessment part to calculate optimal DG
size for a given area, quoted in the initial stages of flow chart
could not be carried out in full. So we have proceeded with
TABLE II
SAFE MAXIMUM DG (GROUP OF 3) CAPACITY LEVELS
DG Planned at buses in MW
March
local
Upwell
Chatteris
No DG
case
Case
A

(MW)

%
loss
red.

Loss

Constraints activated
Back
Lin
feed
e
Loss

1.61

33.43

20

10

0.91

43

No

No

No

33.43

20

10

0.91

43

No

No

No

Case
B

8.43

20

35

1.34

17

No

No

No

8.43

20

35

1.34

17

No

No

No

Case
C

21

21

21

0.87

46

No

No

No

21

21

21

0.87

46

No

No

No

TABLE III
SAFE MAXIMUM DG (GROUP OF 3) CAPACITY LEVELS (E: ECONOMICALLY
OPTIMAL SIZE AND T: TECHNICALLY CONSTRAINED SIZE OF DG)
DG Planned at buses in MW
LittleSout
Whittleport
h-ery
sey
No DG
case
Case
D
Case
E
Case
F

(MW)

%
loss
red.

Loss

Constraints activated
Back
feed
Line
Loss

2.56

32

22

22

6.45

No

Yes

Yes

12

17

22

2.13

16

No

No

No

22

22

32

4.66

No

No

Yes

12

17

32

2.44

No

No

No

22

32

22

7.11

No

Yes

Yes

12

17

22

2.14

16

No

No

No

200
150
% active power loss

Southery

100
50
0
Case A

Case B

Case C

Case D

Case E

Case F

-50
-100
Siting combinations

Fig. 4. March network Loss profile of March network.

different combinations of assumed optimal DG capacities to

test the proposed methodology. Also, a range of DG location
and size combinations have been tested to estimate the effect
of DG size on the given network. However, in a few cases

such as those shown in TABLE III, active power losses have

increased very significantly when compared to the no DG
case. In general, the assumption is that the DG placed in any
network can help reduce line power flows in the network and
in turn reduce the losses. The examples in Table III go against
this popular assumption. It means a DG can either reduce or
even increase losses in a given network, which is governed
more by the DG size and importantly its location in the
network with respect to the load concentration. These
interesting cases gave us an opportunity to explore the
proposed techno-economic methodology in full.
Table III shows the set of cases where loss and line
breaches have occurred. When more than one breach occurs,
the loss breach is given precedence over any other breach and
the correcting action of capacity curtailment will be applied
first to correct the losses.
One method is based on the specific production cost of the
biomass plant and the other is based on the loss index, as
shown in the flow chart of Figure 2. Whenever the loss flag is
set, the loss based approach calculated the loss index of each
DG in order identify the most loss sensitive DG plant. At each
iteration, each plant size was reduced by a unit value and the
resulting loss of this new reduced capacity is compared to the
no DG loss. The DG that results in highest difference in loss
by unit decrement is chosen as the most sensitive one for
curtailment. The most loss sensitive DG plant capacity is
reduced by unit value, which is 5MW in this case, and the
process repeated if loss flag remains set. For the purpose of
this study, the loss sensitivity is calculated based on No DG
loss and with DG loss. Alternatively, in the cost based
approach the most cost sensitive plant is the plant with the
highest specific biomass production cost in /kg. This plant
size is reduced by unit value (5MW) and the process repeats
until there is no breach. Table III is the result of application of
cost based capacity curtailment.
Both cost and loss based approaches have been applied in
order to reach acceptable DG plant sizes where the new active
power losses in the network have fallen below the no DG
case. After the technical constraint has been applied, all DG
plants whose capacities have been reduced below their
economically optimal values were reassessed for economic
worthiness. The net present value of the plants at Littleport
and Southery buses was found to have reduced in response to
the capacity curtailments. However the plant capacity at
Whittelesey bus is not curtailed because it is neither the most
sensitive plant for losses or production cost. The NPV of the
plants may not always decrease with the reduction of plant
size. In this study, the optimal radius of catchment area is
considered variable for different DG sizes under
consideration, however, the density of biomass, LHV,
efficiency of the plant, investment and fixed costs are assumed
the same due to unavailability of data. For a biomass power
plant, the source can be highly variable. Besides the impact of
a DG on a network is governed by different network specific
factors. Hence a site specific assessment is necessary and
justified.

An attempt has also been made to continue the loss

sensitivity based DG capacity curtailment for Case D in Table
IV until the minimum achievable active power loss in the
network is reached. The results obtained are given in Table V.
In this case, a loss reduction of up to 58% was achieved. This
approach works well for the DNO, however, for this case
economic assessment was not carried out. So this may be an
excellent DG size as far as the DNO is concerned but may not
satisfy the DG owner.
TABLE IV
TECHNO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT- A COMPARISON OF COST BASED AND LOSS
BASED APPROACHES

TABLE V
LOSS BASED APPROACH LEAST LOSS DETERMINATION

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The desire to increase the penetration of distributed
generation, particularly renewable generation, can cause
problems for network operators. There needs to be a means to
balance the concerns of a network operate with the desires of
DG developers at the planning stage of a DG project or at the
planning stage of a network enhancement. That balance can be
achieved through the techno-economic assessment presented
here. It attempts to optimise the economic return from DG
development within the technical constraints imposed by
limits in the network.
It achieves this in a three stage process: determination of
economically optimum DG, the technical curtailment of the
DG and a revaluation of the economic case.

The case study area chosen was around the town of

March. Several examples of the technical assessment of this
area were used to highlight the impact of DG losses produced
by various arrangements of DG. Comparisons were drawn
between losses developed when DG was concentrated at one
bus or shared between several busses.
As an example of curtailment of DG in the event of a
breach, a set of three DGs at three buses were selected where
the various DG had different production costs and if all
operated, then the loss limit of the network was exceeded. An
iterative method of curtailing DG was tested in which two
criteria were tried. The first criterion is to curtail the size of
the DG which has the highest production cost. The second
criterion is to calculate at each iteration which DG produces
the highest increase in loss and to curtail that DG. The
effectiveness of the two methods is tested and the total NPV
achieved by the first criterion is greater than the total NPV
achieved by the second criterion. The loss based approach
could be the favourable one for a DNO. For the DG owner the
loss based approach gives a still acceptable NPV, though
slightly less than that from the cost based approach. The Loss
based plant capacity curtailment has been tested until the
overall network active power losses are at a minimum.
VI. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]

The Distribution Working Group of the IEEE Power System Planning

and Implementation Committee, "Planning for effective distribution,"
IEE Power and Energy magazine, pp. 54-62, Sep/Oct. 2003
R. C. Durgan, T.E. McDermott and G.J. Ball, Planning for distributed
generation, IEEE Industry Applications magazine, pp. 80-88, Mar/Apr.
2001.
Biomass Task force, Report to the Government, (Oct. 2005) [online]
Available:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/energy/biomasstaskforce/btf-finalreport.pdf
Paul Arwas Associates, "Biomass sector review for the Carbon Trust,"
Carbon Trust., UK, Oct. 2005
A. Maiorano, A. Pantaleo, A. Minoia and M. Trovato, "Technical and
economical feasibility of biomass power plants," presented at the First
World Conference and Exhibition on biomass for energy and industry,
pp 903-907, Spain, June 2000.
M. Fiala, G. Pellizzi and G. Riva, "A model for the optimal
dimensioning of biomass fuelled electric power plants," Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, vol. 67, pp. 17-25, 1997.
G. P. Harrison and A. R. Wallace, OPF evaluation of distribution
network capacity for the connection of distributed generation, IEE
Proc. Generation Transmission Distribution, vol 152, issue 1, 2005.
J. A. Greatbanks, D. H. Popovic, M. Begovic, A. Pregelj and
T.C.
Green, "On optimization for security and reliability of power systems
with distributed generation," presented at IEEE Bologna Power Tech
Conf., Bologna, Italy 2003.
A. Keane, and M. O'Malley, "Optimal Allocation of Embedded
Generation on Distribution Networks," IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol.
20, issue 3, pp. 1640-1646, Aug. 2005.
G. Celli and F. Pilo, Planning for optimal accommodation of dispersed
generation in distribution networks, in Proc. 22nd IEEE PES
international conference on power industry computer applications,
PICA, pp. 81-86, Sydney, Australia, 2001.
M. A. Kashem and G. Ledwich, Distributed generation as voltage
support for single wire earth return systems, IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery, vol. 19, issue 3, pp. 1002-1011, July. 2004.
H. Khatib, Economic evaluation of projects in the electricity supply
industry, IEE Power and Energy series 44, The institution of electrical
engineers, London, 2003.
K. Jarrett, J. Hedgecock, R. Gregory and T. Warham, (Feb. 2004)
Technical guide to the connexion of generation to the distribution
network, Distributed Generation Co-ordinating Group and Technical

Steering Group, Department of Trade and Industry, UK, [online]

Available:
http://www.distributedgeneration.gov.uk/documents/05_01_2004_kel00318.pdf
[14] G. W. Stagg and A. H. El-Abiad, Computer Methods in Power Systems
Analysis, Mc.Grawhill, USA, 1968.
[15] N. Jenkins, R. Allan, P. Crossley, D. Kirschen and G. Strbac, Embedded
generation, IEE Power and Energy series 31, The institution of electrical
engineers, London, 2000.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Sree L Payyala received her B.Tech. and M.Tech.
degrees in electrical and electronic engineering from
J.N.T. University, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India
in 1996 and 2002 respectively. She is currently
working for her Ph.D in the control and power
research group at Imperial College London, London,
UK. Her interests are in the area of distributed
generation planning, integration of renewables into the
distribution network and power systems economics.

Tim C Green (M 89, SM 02) received a B.Sc. (Eng)

(first class honours) from Imperial College, London,
UK in 1986 and a Ph.D. from Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK in 1990. Both degrees
were in electrical engineering. He was a Lecturer at
Heriot Watt University until 1994 and is now a
Professor of Electrical Power Engineering at Imperial
College London and Deputy Head of the Control and
Power Research Group. His research interest is in
using power electronics and control to enhance
power quality and power delivery. This covers interfaces and controllers for
distributed generation, micro-grids, active distribution networks, FACTS and
active power filters. He has an additional line of research in power MEMS
and energy scavenging. He is a Chartered Engineer in the UK and MIEE.