2.

OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DSTATCOM AND DG

FIGURE 1: SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF DSTATCOM

FIGURE 2: V-I CHARACTERISTICS OF DSTATCOM

Distributed STATCOM (DSTATCOM) is a shunt facts power electronics based three phase device used in
Distribution power system for reactive power compensating. It is generally connected in parallel at load
end of the distribution system. The basic components of a DSTATCOM are shown in FIGURE 1. It
consists of a coupling transformer of Leakage impedance L L, GTO/IGBT based Voltage Source Controller
(VSC) and a dc Capacitor(C). The output (AC) terminals of VSC are connected to the point of common
coupling (PCC) through a coupling transformer which is shown in FIGURE1as Leakage impedance (L L).
VSC converts an input DC voltage into three phase AC voltage at fundamental frequency. The input (DC)
terminals of VSC are connected to a DC capacitor which may be charged by the converter itself or by a
separate battery source. The controller of VSC is used to operate tocontrol the power angle difference
between the VSC output terminal voltage (VC) and distribution System voltage (VS) so that the
DSTATCOM may be able to operate at different modes. If the AC terminals voltage of VSC (V C) is equal
to the distribution system voltage (VS) then DSTATCOM will not be able to generate or absorbs reactive
power so it will have no effect on the system as shown in FIGURE 3(a). If VC>VS then the DSTATCOM
acts as a source of reactive power and feed it to the distribution system. So DSTATCOM is said to be
operating in capacitive mode (FIGURE 3(b)). IfVC<VSthen DSTATCOM performs as a sink of reactive
power and take it from the distribution system so DSTATCOM is said to be working in inductive mode
(FIGURE 3(c)). V-I characteristics of DSTATCOM is shown in FIGURE 2. The working range of the
DSTATCOM lies between higher voltage limit (V2) and lower voltage limit (V1). When distribution
system voltage exceeds those limits then DSTATCOM control the converter voltage (V C) and works as a
constant current source device. So DSTATCOM employs solid power switching device for compensating
reactive power, leading to rapidly controlling of distribution system voltage, both in magnitude and phase
angle. Therefore DSTATCOM is said to be a Voltage Compensating Device.

FIGURE 3: DSTATCOM OPERATION AT (a) NO LOAD (b)CAPACETIVE MODE(c)INDUCTIVE MODE

DG generally define as small scale generation (10MW or less) which are interconnected at load end or
coupled with the distribution system for production of electricity. Distributed generations systems are
decentralized that are situated at a close proximity of the load or consumer and offer several benefit over
conventional power sources. Distributed generation systems are modular and flexible technology that are
based on renewable energy sources such as solar cell, wind turbine, geothermal, biogas, micro turbines etc.
DG system can be employed for standby or emergency generation, stand alone to power supply in remote
areas or to provide power supports during peak load period. So the technology is also called alternate energy
system. DG technology also plays a vital role of reducing emission of pollutant and green house gases to the
atmosphere by contributing a pollution free and sustainable form of energy. In spite of having obstacle for
DG technology such as cost, integration of DG, DG helps to reduce system losses, improved voltage profile,
increased system efficiency, reduced environmental impact and enhanced reliability of the system. Keeping
in mind the increasing energy demand across the world, Distributed Generation i.e. renewable energy
sources is the solution to meet up that demand of electricity and is a substitute over conventional power
sources.

3. PERFORMANCE CRITERION
In this paper, optimal allocation of DSTATCOM and DG are determined taking into account both
technical and economical impacts of those devices. Technical impact includes voltage profile
enhancement, reduction of real and reactive power losses whereas economical impact consists of
recovery time period. The problem is formulated using four objective function namely voltage
profile improvement index (

VPII

), percentage of real (

PL %

) and reactive (

Q L%

) power loss reductions

and recovery time ( ). A better performance is obtained from a voltage compensating device when it
is installed at only week bus location. So, to reduce search space, a technique so called fast voltage
stability index (

FVSI

) is utilized here to identify weak bus locations.

A. Fast Voltage Stability Index (

FVSI

FVSIij

is one of the fastest and most widely used line stability index which is used to determine
weak lines and bus locations of a system. The
calculated as follows:
FVSI

Where,

ij

is the reactance of the line,

FVSIij

4 Z 2Q

of a transmission line (between bus i and bus j) is

FVSI=

Vi X

()

4Z Qj
1
2
V1 X

Qj

is the impedance of the line,

Vi

is the reactive power load at

FVSI

the receiving end bus, is the sending end bus voltage. If the value of
is found to be greater
than 1 for any line,then one of the buses connected to that line will experience sudden voltage drop
FVSI

FVSI

leading to system instability. Within stable operating zone (

1), the line whose
value is
closer to 1 implies that the line is approaching towards system instability. Thus, using this index, the
FVSI

weaker lines of the system (lines having higher values of

) can be identified and the
corresponding sending and receiving end buses are considered to be the weaker buses of the
network.

VPII

B. Voltage Profile Improvement Index ( )

With the introduction of device such that DSTATCOM or DG in power system, there will be a
considerable improvement of voltage profile as the device provides an additional reactive power to
the system. So,The Voltage Profile Improvement Index (

VPII

)is a major criterion which should be

VPII

considered as an objective function forthe optimal placementof thecompensatingdevice.The

quantifies the improvement in the voltage profile for the placement of the compensating device.In
this method the voltage profile (

VPi

) of the ith node of the system is defined in ()

VPi

V Pi =

Here,
Vnom

Vi Vmin Vmax Vi
Vnom Vmin Vmax Vi

( V i V min ) ( V max V i )
( V nomV min ) ( V max V min ) ()
Vi

th

represents the i bus in the network. denotes the bus voltage of the ith bus in the network,

(nominal bus voltage) is taken to be 1 p.u. The

Vmin

and

Vmax

are considered as 0.9p.u. and 1.1 p.u.

respectively. Therefore, the overall network voltage profile index (

1 n
VPi
VPI
n i 1

VP1

) of the system is given in ():

V P1 =

1
V Pi
n i=1
()

Where, is the number of load buses in the network.

Therefore, the voltage profile improvement index of the system can be calculated by ()
VPII

(VPI ) with device

(VPI ) without device

()

VPII

If the
is found to be less than 1, it indicates deterioration of voltage profile. So, the device is not
beneficial.On the contrary, if the VPII is found to be greater than 1, it signifies improvement in
voltage profile. Hence, the compensating device has the positive impacts towards the system. If the
VPII

is found to be 1, then it denotes no effect of the voltage compensating device on the system.

Higher value of

VPII

indicates better voltage profile improvement.

C. Percentage of loss reduction

Compensating devices are mainly employed in a system for the purpose of power compensation. As
a result, system voltage profile is improved and consequently line loss is reduced. Hence, a
percentage reduction of line loss is become important parameter to be regarded as a performance
criteria. The calculation of the percentage of real and reactive power loss reduction is given by () and
() respectively.
PL %

PL without device PL with device

PL without device

100

()

QL %
PL %

QL without device QL with device

QL without device

QL%

100

()

Here,
and
represents the real and reactive power losses and
percentage reduction in real and reactive power loss respectively.

PL %

Q %

and

stands for the

D. Recovery Time ( )
Integration of DSTATCOM and DG in a power system reduces line losses and enhances voltage
profile. DSTATCOM is able to provide some amount of reactive power whereas DG can offer both
active and reactive power. Therefore, to meet the same load demand, the generation of main
generator decreases that result into energy saving. Total expenditure due to installing those devices
will be sum of their installation cost and their maintenance cost while total benefit will be the
generator cost saving. Recovery time is defined as the time period when total expenditure and total
benefit will be equal to each other.
The installation cost of shunt FACTS devices such as DSTATCOM is computed by ( )

CDSTATCOM 0.0003S 2 0.3051S 127.38 MVAr compensation 1000 $

Where, S represents the operating range or MVAr rating of the DSTATCOM and MVAr
compensation refers to the reactive power compensation provided by the DSTATCOM. The
maintenance cost of DSTATCOM (Cm) is taken as 5% of the installation cost (C inst).
Equation ( ) presents the installation cost of DG which is set to be operated at a power factor of 0.9
by means of converter and inverter technology.
C DG 1030000 MVA rating 159000 MVA rating 38160 MVAr generation capacity

( )

The yearly maintenance cost (Cm) is evaluated in ( ).

C m=maintenance cost / MW hDG rating ( MW )hours a yearplant factor .

Maintenance cost for each MWh energy generation is taken as 10.9$. It is not possible for DG to
operate continuously for a given period of time, thats why plant factor is introduced and it is taken
as 0.25.
The recovery time T is calculated using ( )
T

Installation cost
Annual generation cost savings annual maintenance / operating cost

()
Here, Cinst refers to the installation cost of the compensating device which may be (DSTATCOM or
DG), CGen_sav and Cm stands for the annual generation cost savings due to reduction of main generation
and the annual maintenance cost of the devices respectively.
Annual generation cost savings (CGensav ) (CG ) without DG / DSTATCOM (CG ) with DG / DSTATCOM
CG CP CQ

()

CG is the yearly generation cost, which is calculated using ( )

Where, CP and CQ are the
annual active and reactive power generation costs correspondingly. C P and CQ are computed as in
equations and respectively.

C P aP 2 bP c 8760

( )

CQ a ( sin2 Q
)

b sin
(
Q
) c 8760

( )
Here, P denotes active power generation while Q represents reactive power generations respectively.

symbolizes the power factor angle and a, b, c are the generator cost coefficients which are taken
as 0.0256,10 & 0 respectively.
E. ECONOMIC BENEFIT ( EB)
Economic Benefit (EB) is also a key performance parameter to find out which compensating devices
would be more beneficiary for a certain period or life time of the devices. Throughout the recovery
time period, generator cost saving provided by DSTATCOM or DG, will compensate the expenditure
due to installation and maintenance. Thats why those devices will not be able to provide any kind of
benefit. Hence, economic benefit will be obtained after recovery time period. The formula employed
for calculation of EB is shown in ( ).
Economic Benefit ( EB ) =[ Y { ( R1 )T }(C Gen C m )]
(
)
sav

Y is the number of years for which EB is to be calculated. T stands for recovery time period of those
devices while R is no of replacements to be made for the duration of Y.
F. POLUTION INDEX (PI)
Pollution index (PI) is an indication and severity of the pollution, generated due to emission of trash,
greenhouse gases and pollutants during the generation of electrical energy. Here, focus is mainly
given on the pollution that is caused due to emission of gases such as CO2, SOx, and NOx. In this
paper, PI is calculated for I unit of energy generation at normal operating condition and in the
presence of voltage compensating devices. A higher value of PI indicates that the energy generation
process has a major impact on creating atmospheric pollution.

Pollution index(PI )=

total amount released(kg)relative toxicityscaling factor

total energy demand for 24 hours1000

Total amount released=( amount released / MWH )energy production by main generator 24 hours ( MWh)

Energy production by main generator 24 h ours ( MW h )=main generator generation(MW ) wit h DGDSTATCOMp

Total energy demand for 24 hours with DGDSTATCOM ( kwh )=( energy production by main generator24 h ours ( MW

In a thermal power plant, emission of CO2, SOx, and NOx for generation of 1 MWh energy
generation is specified as 910, 6.94, 4.22 kg respectively. Relative toxicity is taken into account as
all the pollutants are not equally dangerous. Relative toxicity for CO2, SOx, and NOx are taken as
1,692,500 respectively. Scaling factor is set to be 35.7 for all the cases. Plant factor for DG and
DSTATCOM is taken as 0.25,1 correspondingly.

4) PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Step 1: The desired power system is constructed using MiPower simulation software.

Step 2: Load flow analysis of the system is carried out using MiPower simulation software by Newton Raphson
method and the result is stored for future use.
Step 3:FVSIs for the different lines of the system are calculated and the weak buses of the system are identified.
Step 4: The total load MVA is calculated.
Step 5: Load flow analysis of the network is carried out using DSTATCOM/DG (one at a time) at each weak bus
location. The results for each case are stored for future use. The procedures of incorporation of DSTATCOM &DG
are given as follows:
DSTATCOM: In the case of DSTATCOM, an MVAr rating equal to 20 % of the load MVA is used with a slope
of 1%.
DG: In the case of DGs, aMVArating of 20 % of load MVA is used. The MVA rating is decomposed into MW
and MVAr ratings such that the total MVAr generation capacity is equal to 0.484 of the total MW generation
capacity (corresponding to p.f. 0.9).
Step 6: The cost recovery time (T) is calculated for each case. The generator cost coefficients a, b, c used for the
calculation of recovery time (to calculate the annual generation cost savings) are taken as 0.0256, 10 & 0 respectively.
Step 7: The VPII calculation is conducted for each case.
Step 8: If the best results for the 2 objective functions (T & VPII) are obtained at the same bus location, then that bus
location is chosen as the optimal location, otherwise step 9 is conducted.
Step 9: Apply Non Dominated Sorted Genetic Algorithm on the 2 objective functions to find the optimal location.
Step 10: The EBs obtained at the optimal locations for time periods of 12 years & 24 years are calculated for both
DSTATCOM &DG.
Step 11: If the better results for both EB and VPII are obtained with the use of the same device, then the
corresponding device would be more beneficiary. Otherwise, step 12 is applied.
Step 12: Non Dominated Sorting Algorithm is applied on the EB and VPII values obtained with the use of the 2
devices in order to determine which device is better.

5) RESULT S AND DISCUSSIONS

The proposed methodology is tested on IEEE 33-Bus radial distribution system in MIPOWER environment for the
optimal allocation of DSTATCOM and DG. IEEE 33 bus radial distribution system is shown in Figure 1.It consists of
1 slack bus generator (connected at bus 1) and 32 load bus. The base power and base voltage are 100 MVA and 11
KV respectively. Total real power and reactive power load of the system is 3.715 MW and 2.3 MVAr respectively.

Figure 1: IEEE 33 bus radial distribution system

In order to reduce the computational time, the optimal placement of the compensating devices are assessed
considering only weak bus locations which are determined after calculation of FVSI of each distribution line of the
system.After calculating FVSI values of different lines of the network,it is found that the lines 1-2, 23-24, 29-30 are
showing higher FVSI values as compared to other lines. So, these three lines are considered as weaker lines and their
corresponding buses (2, 23, 24, 29 and 30) are resolved as weaker buses.Table 1 indicates the three weaker lines and their
corresponding FVSI values for 33-Bus.
TABLE 1: THREE WEAKER LINES AND THEIR CORROSPONDING FVSI VALUES

Sending end Bus

1
23
29

Receiving end Bus

2
24
30

FVSI value
0.027162
0.009608
0.021937

5.1.1 Optimal placement of DSTATCOM

Table 2 shows the percentage reduction of real and reactive power loss when DSTATCOM is connected at each weak
bus location, one at a time. For all cases, both real and reactive power losses are reduced for the placement of
DSTATCOM. From Table 2, it is observed that the percentage reduction of both real and reactive power lossesare
higher when DSTATCOM is connected to bus number 30 and the worst result is found when DSTATCOM is
connected to bus number 2.As more loss reduction is necessary, DSTATCOM should be installed at bus number30.
TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE REDUCTION OF REAL AND REACTIVE POWER LOSS IN CASE OF DSTATCOM
Bus
no.

2
23
24
29
30

Real Power loss

Reactive power loss Real Power loss Reactive power loss
Percentage
Percentage
withoutDSTATCOM(MW)
without
with
with
Reduction of
Reduction of
DSTATCOM(MVAr) DSTATCOM DSTATCOM(MVAr) Real Power Loss Reactive Power
(MW)
(PL %)
Loss (QL %)

0.202677

0.135141

0.200548
0.190203
0.190454
0.15283
0.150228

0.134036
0.128637
0.128827
0.10148
0.100114

1.05044
6.15462
6.030778
24.59431
25.87812

0.817665
4.812751
4.672157
24.90806
25.91886

Different DSTATCOM parameters such as MVAr rating, MVAr compensation along with cost and recovery time are
presented in Table 3 when DSTATCOM is installed separatelyat each weaker bus.From the Table, it can be concluded

that the recovery time period (T) decreases with the increase of annual generation cost saving.It is clear from the
Table 3 that best value of the recovery time is obtain when DSTATCOM is placed at 30 th Bus and worst valueis
obtained after connecting DSTATCOM at 2 nd Bus.Taking into account a fast recovery time, it is decided that bus 30
will be the best option for DSTATCOM placement.
TABLE 3: RECOVERY TIME ANDPARAMETERS OF DSTATCOM
Bus no.

Rating of
DSTATCOM
(MVAr)

compensation by
DSTATCOM
(MVAR)

Installation
cost ($)

Maintenance cost
($)

Annual generation cost

savings ($)

Recovery Time T
(Yr.)

2
23
24
29
30

0.873
0.873
0.873
0.873
0.873

0.872
0.859
0.856
0.826
0.824

110843
109190
108809.20
104995.80
104741.60

5542.152
5459.528
5440.461
5249.791
5237.079

40682.79
41294.94
41202.25
44322.57
44322.57

3.15427
3.047002
3.042611
2.687185
2.679807

Optimal placement of DSTATCOM is carried out using 4 objective functions namely VPII, P L %, QL % and T. The
values of VPII, PL %, QL %, T are summarized in Table 4. The voltage compensating device is to be placed in such
a location that it would be more beneficial i.e. it would maximize system voltage profile, minimize system losses, and
have a faster recovery time period as compared to other location. It is noticed from the table that connections of
DSTATCOM at bus number 30 maximizes both voltage profile improvement index and percentage reduction of losses
and have the fastest recovery time period. Hence, optimal location of DSTATCOM will be at Bus number 30.
TABLE 4: COMPARISSION OF DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE FUNCTION IN CASE OF DSTATCOM

Bus no.

VPII

Percentage Reduction of
Real Power Loss (PL
%)

Percentage Reduction of
Real Power Loss (QL
%)

Recovery Time T
(Yr.)

2
23
24
29
30

1.004578
1.028479
1.031403
1.159943
1.164074

1.05044
6.15462
6.030778
24.59431
25.87812

0.817665
4.812751
4.672157
24.90806
25.91886

3.15427
3.047002
3.042611
2.687185
2.679807

.
5.1.2 Optimal placement of DG
Percentage reductions of both real and reactive power loss are described in Table 5 when DG is connected at each weak
bus location, one by one. From Table 5, it is observed that percentage reduction of both real and reactive power loss
reaches the maximum value when DG is connected to bus number 30 and it attains theminimum value when DG is
connected to bus number 2. As more loss reduction is essential, DG should be placed at 30th Bus.
TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE REDUCTION OF REAL AND REACTIVE POWER LOSS IN CASE OF DG
Bus
no.

2
23
24
29
30

Real Power loss Reactive power loss Real Power loss

without DG
without DG
with DG
(MW)
(MVAr)
(MW)

0.202677

0.135141

0.198238
0.173915
0.168673
0.111073
0.107937

Reactive power
loss with DG
(MVAr)

0.132836
0.119678
0.115584
0.074536
0.072899

Percentage
Percentage Reduction
Reduction of Real
of Reactive Power
Power Loss (PL %)
Loss (QL %)

2.190184
14.19105
16.77743
45.19704
46.74433

1.705626
11.44212
14.47155
44.84575
46.05708

The DG ratings, cost, recovery time are given in Table 6.For all cases, the rating of the compensating device is same
as the compensation is 20% ofthe rated load. Hence, installation and maintenance costs are same. But the annual
generation cost savings are different for the different placement options because the loss reduction is altered when the

compensating device is placed at different location. It is also revealed that as the value of annual generation cost
saving is increasing,correspondingly thevalue of recovery time is decreasing. The lowest value of recovery time is
found when DG is installed at bus number 30 and the highest value is obtained for the allocation of DG at bus
number 2.As a lower value of recovery time is desirable,DG should be placed at 30th Bus.
TABLE 6: CALCULATION OF RECOVARY TIME IN CASE OF DG
Bus no.

Rating of
DG (MVA)

2
23
24
29
30

0.873

Real power
gen. by DG
(MW)

Reactive power
genby DG
(MVAR)

Installation cost
($)

Maintenance
cost ($)

Annual generation
cost savings ($)

Recovery Time T
(Yr.)

0.786
0.786
0.786
0.786
0.786

0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38

1052498
1052498
1052498
1052498
1052498

18762.61
18762.61
18762.61
18762.61
18762.61

88275.72
91014.86
91645.41
98708.32
99067.99

15.141
14.567
14.441
13.165
13.106

Like DSTATCOM optimal placement, the optimal allocation of DG is performed by conducting a relative comparison
of its performance at each weakbus location based on the 4 objective function namely VPII,PL %, QL % and T.
Comparison of objective functions for different placements of DG are shown inTable 7.Considering those objective
functions, it is clear from the table that bus number 30 will be the best location and bus number 2 will be the worst
location for DG placement.
TABLE 7: COMPARISSION OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS FOR DIFFERENT PLACEMENTS OF DG
Bus no.

VPII

Percentage Reduction of Real

Power Loss (PL %)

Percentage Reduction of Real

Power Loss (QL %)

Recovery Time T
(Yr.)

2
23
24
29
30

1.009965
1.064591
1.067453
1.273371
1.280056

2.190184
14.19105
16.77743
45.19704
46.74433

1.705626
11.44212
14.47155
44.84575
46.05708

15.141
14.567
14.441
13.165
13.106

5.1.3 Relative Comparison of Performance of DSTATCOM and DG at Optimal Location

In the case of IEEE 33 bus radial distribution system,the optimal location is found to be at bus 30for both
DSTATCOM and DG.So, a relative analysis is necessary to find out which device would be more beneficial.
Figure 2 indicates voltage profile of IEEE 33 bus radial distribution system at normal operating condition and after
the placement of DSTATCOM and DG at optimal location. Figure 2 clearly indicates that installation of DSTATCOM
and DG separately at optimal location enhanced voltage profile significantly. But, DG provides a better voltage
profile improvement than that of DSTATCOM.

FIGURE 2: SYSTEM VOLTAGE MAGNITUDE AT NORMAL CONDITION AND WITH DSTATCOM & DG AT OPTIMAL
LOCATION

Table 8 shows the relative comparison of performancesfor DSTATCOM and DG at optimal location . For VPII, percentage
real and reactive power loss reduction, DG shows better result than DSTATCOM. On the other hand, for the case of
recovery time, DSTATCOM shows a superior result over DG.So,it will be tough to decide which one will be more
beneficial.Hence, economic benefit (EB) is introduced for a given number of years. As DSTATCOM and DG hasan
average lifetime of 12 years and 24 years respectively, EB is calculated for 12 years and 24 years for both devices.
EB for a period of 12 and 24 years for both DSTATCOM and DG is shown in Table 9. For the periods of 12 years DG
provides no economic benefit as its recovery time is greater than 12 years but DSTATCOM provides economic
benefit. For the periods of 24 year,the DSTATCOM need to be replaced once as its lifetime is 12 years. From Table 9,
it can be noticed that DG is more advantageous over DSTATCOM for the longer period.
TABLE 8:RELATIVE COMPARISSION OF PERFORMANCESFOR DSTATCOM AND DG AT OPTIMAL LOCATION

Equipment

Optimal bus
location

VPII

Percentage Reduction of
Real Power Loss (PL %)

Percentage Reduction of
Real Power Loss (QL
%)

Recovery Time T
(Yr.)

DSTATCOM
DG

Bus 30
Bus 30

1.164074
1.280056

25.87812
46.74433

25.91886
46.05708

2.679807
13.1062

TABLE 9:ECONOMIC BENEFIT FOR A PERIOD OF 12 AND 24 YEARS FOR BOTH DSTATCOM AND DG

Equipment

Optimal bus
location

DSTATCOM
DG

Bus 30
Bus 30

For a period of 12 years

Replacements Economic benefit
($)
0
367500.4
0
0

For a period of 24 years

Replacements Economic benefit
($)
1
735000.80
0
874830.82

Total energy demand for 24 hours with and without compensating device is presented in table 10.
During normal operation condition the total energy demand due to load and losses is to be carried
out by the main generator itself. As introduction of DSTATCOM and DG reduces system losses, thus
the main generator generation is reduced. In case of DG, the total power generation is further
reduces as a part of active power is provided by the DG. But, DG cannot be operated continuously.
In the absence of DG the power generation by main generator will be exactly same as it is at normal

condition. It is observed from the table 10 that with the integration of those devices, total energy
demands of the system are condensed.
Table 11 presents pollution index per unit of energy generation and amount of pollutant gas emission
at normal condition and with compensating devices. Atmospheric pollution is mainly caused due to
emission of gases in power plant but with the introduction of DSTATCOM and DG total energy
generation by main generator reduces. It results into reduction of emission of dangerous gases. It is
also observed from Table 11 that the lowest value PI is found in case of DG technology. Thus, DG
technology is superior to DSTATCOM from the environmental impact point of view.
TABLE 10: TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND FOR 24 HOURS WITH AND WITHOUT COMPENSATING DEVICE

Main gen.
real power
generation
(MW)

Rating
(MW)

Plant
factor

Total energy generation

by main generator
in 24 hours (MWh)

3.918

3.865

3.037

0.786

At normal
condition
With
DSTATCOM
With DG

Total energy
demand for 24
hours (MWh)

94.032

Total energy
generation by
DG/DSTATCOM
in 24 hours (MWh)
0

92.760

92.760

0.25

88.746

4.716

93.462

94.032

TABLE 11: POLUTION INDEX FOR EACH UNIT OF ENERGY GENERATION WITH AND WITHOUT COMPENSATING DEVICE

At normal
condition
With
DSTATCOM
With DG

CO2 emission
for 24 hours
(Kg)
85569.12

SOX emission
for 24 hours
(Kg)
652.582

NOX emission
for 24 hours
(Kg)
396.815

Total Pollution
index for 24 hours
26259614.79

Pollution index for 1

KWh of energy
generation
279.263

84411.60

643.754

391.447

25904392.84

279.263

80758.86

615.897

374.508

24783433.02

265.171

6) CONCLUSION
It can be concluded after analyzing above facts that voltage profile, VPII, percentage reduction of real and reactive
power loss is better in case of DG technology but the recovery time is found to be more in case of DG technology in
comparison with DSTATCOM technology. So if we consider only the economic benefit then we can conclude that if
the device is proposed to be implemented for a period of less than 12 years then DSTATCOM will be the best option
as DG will not be able to provide any economic benefit (due to its recovery time is greater than 12 years) but if the
device is proposed to be implemented for a long period of time say 24 years then DG will provide economic benefit
as well as other aspects like voltage profile improvement and percentage loss reductionhigherthan DSTATCOM.