Is Replacing a 25 kVAr Unit with Two 12.5 kVAr Units More Efficient?

AI Thread Summary
Replacing a 25 kVAr unit with two 12.5 kVAr units can enhance efficiency based on site demand data, which indicates that peak requirements rarely exceed 30 kVAr and often only need 12.5 kVAr. The recommendation stems from the analysis of interval data, suggesting that smaller units provide better power factor correction for varying loads. Economic justification for this change largely depends on how the energy supplier bills for power factor; utilities may charge for capacitive power factor, influencing the decision. If the utility does not impose such charges, the cost-effectiveness of the new arrangement may not be justified. Ultimately, the decision should be based on a thorough analysis of energy costs and power factor billing practices.
AbdullahS
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Advice needed on Power Factor Correction Unit upgrade
Hi all,

The power factor correction unit for one of the buildings that I am working on needs maintenance. The service report recommends replacing the existing 25 kVAr unit with 2 x 12.5 kVAr units as "the demand on your site according to the data supplied shows us that at most there is only 30kVAr required at peak demand and quite often only requires 12.5kVAr".

This has been recommended after the analysis of interval data. The following graph shows the KVAr at the site for a period of 3 months.

1581896853254.png


Could you please advice if replacing the larger bank with two 2 smaller capacitor banks justified? If so, what is the reason? Shouldn't the old one do the job even when the kVAr requirement is low?

A bit of background about myself:
I am a mechanical engineer who is working in sustainability industry. I do have basic knowledge of reactive power but not detailed enough to answer questions such as these.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Abdullah
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Whether the change is a good economic decision (or not) depends primarily on how your energy supplier bills for Power Factor. In the simplest case, Power Factor correction systems add capacitance to 'offset' the inductive character of most loads. A 'too large' correction will leave your power factor 'too capacitive.' 2 smaller systems would allow closer to ideal (net zero) correction for a range of loads. As I understand it, some utilities charge for capacitive PF, and some don't - if yours does bill for capacitive PF, you'll need to compare the 'do nothing' cost to the cost of the new arrangement. If they don't bill for capacitive PF, you probably can't (economically) justify the change.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
Thanks @Dullard!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top