4.6 Article

Performance comparison of controllers for solar PV water pumping applications

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 195-202

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2015.06.050

关键词

VFD; Pump controller; Solar PV pump; MPPT; Sinusoidal pump controller with MPPT

资金

  1. Solar Energy Research Institute for India
  2. U.S. (SERIIUS) - U.S. Department of Energy (Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solar Energy Technology Program) [DE AC36-08G028308]
  3. U.S. (SERIIUS) - U.S. Department of Energy (Office of International Affairs) [DE AC36-08G028308]
  4. Government of India subcontract IUSSTF/JCERDC-SERIIUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a detailed comparison of two different electronic controllers used for driving Solar Photovoltaic water pumping systems in India. A recently developed Sine-wave Pump Controller with MPPT (SPCM) having two stage converter topology offered better performance throughout the operational range, over the most popular controllers using the Variable Frequency Drives (VFD). This paper presents an exhaustive study of SPCM and VFD based controllers in terms of their operational performance at 10 m, 18 m and 20 m head, in terms of quality of output power and quantity of the total water delivered when connected to the same motor-pump set under similar conditions. SPCM with best MPPT efficiency of 99.4%, lowest THD of less than 3% and pumped 30% to 70% more water for same heads. The overall system efficiency of SPCM based pump is 18% higher than VFD based pumping system for the head corresponding to duty point. The output power quality of SPCM is considerably high, with superior sine-wave (crest-factor 1.42 and 1.56 for voltage & current), ensures no voltage spikes even at 60 m of cable length. Thus, the paper establishes performance dominance of SPCM over the VFD based controller through the measurement on actual sample. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据