Search NASA⌕ Search

DOE OSTI · 2999023

Spacetime pq theory for AC and DC electric power systems

Abstract

The 50/60 Hz alternating current (AC) electric power has been the standard and most flexible energy source powering our modern societies for one and a half centuries since the war of the currents: AC versus direct current (DC). A reactive power concept that was introduced at the beginning of the AC power was very useful for circuit/system analysis, design, control, optimization, and ultimately for more efficient and stable generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption. The initial reactive power theory was based on single-phase sinusoidal AC power to capture inductive and capacitive power that yields to net-zero average power over one fundamental cycle. Soon it was expanded to non-sinusoidal AC power and finally to instantaneous three-phase AC power. However, these reactive power theories remain separate and limited to special cases and have never been consolidated and made valid to all cases. Today, more widespread adoption of power electronics and renewable energy is bringing back DC power into the electric grids. The reactive power concept has never been applied to DC power systems. There is no reactive power in DC power systems according to the existing reactive power theories. Do DC power systems really have no reactive power? Capacitors and inductors are widely used in DC just like in AC power systems. Are they not reactive power components? Why are they different from their AC counterparts? Furthermore, are batteries active or reactive power components? What about active devices like power converters (or inverters) with AC (or DC) on one side and DC (or AC) on the other? Do they generate or consume reactive power? Finally, what about AC and DC hybrid power systems? How to define reactive power in such a complex power system that has a multitude of loads, buses, and sources? Is there reactive power between any two loads, any two buses, or any two sources in a power system and what is the total reactive power in such a complex power system as a whole? As the motivation and goal of this paper to answer the above basic questions, to unify the existing AC reactive power theories and to ultimately provide theoretical and insightful guidance for system analysis, design, control, efficiency, optimization, and operation of complex power systems, a concept of spacetime (both spatial and temporal) active and reactive power (pq) theory—the spatiotemporal aspect of active and reactive power—is developed for both AC and DC power systems. The theoretical definitions and physical meanings of the spacetime reactive power will be developed, and real applications and thought experiments/cases/exercises will be explored and discussed. The developed mathematics to define the active (or real) and reactive (or imaginary) power— p and q respectively by dot (scalar) and cross (vector) products of multi-dimension spacetime vectors and time-space mapping principle/law can have some fundamental implications as well.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peng, Fang Z. [University of Pittsburgh, PA (United States)], Huang, Hao [University of Houston, TX (United States)], Tolbert, Leon M. [The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (United States)], Lehman, Brad [Northeastern University, Boston, MA (United States)], Li, YuAnn [University of Pittsburgh, PA (United States)]. 2025-03-10. Spacetime pq theory for AC and DC electric power systems. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90021-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

Nodal capacity expansion planning with flexible large-scale load siting

We propose explicitly incorporating large-scale load siting into a stochastic nodal power system capacity expansion planning model that concurrently co-optimizes generation, transmission, and storage expansion. The potential operational flexibility of some of these large loads is also taken into account by considering them as consisting of a set of tranches with different reliability requirements, which are modeled as a constraint on expected served energy across operational scenarios. We implement our model as a two-stage stochastic mixed-integer optimization problem with cross-scenario expectation constraints. To overcome the challenge of scalability, we build upon existing work to implement this model on a high performance computing platform and exploit scenario parallelization using an augmented Progressive Hedging Algorithm. The algorithm is implemented using the bounding features of mpisppy, which have shown to provide satisfactory provable optimality gaps despite the absence of theoretical guarantees of convergence. We test our approach and assess the value of this proactive planning framework on total system cost and reliability metrics using realistic testcases geographically assigned to San Diego and South Carolina, with datacenter and direct air capture facilities as large loads.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

From zonal to nodal capacity expansion planning: Spatial aggregation impacts on a realistic test-case

Solving power system capacity expansion planning (CEP) problems at realistic spatial resolutions is computationally challenging. Thus, a common practice is to solve CEP over zonal models with low spatial resolution rather than over full-scale nodal power networks. Due to improvements in solving large-scale stochastic mixed integer programs, these computational limitations are becoming less relevant, and the assumption that zonal models are realistic and useful approximations of nodal CEP is worth revisiting. Here, this work is the first to conduct a systematic computational study on the assumption that spatial aggregation can reasonably be used for ISO-scale CEP. By considering a realistic, large-scale test network based on the state of California with over 8000 buses, we find that well-designed small spatial aggregations can yield good approximations but that coarser zonal models may result in large distortions of investment decisions, e.g., capacity under-investment of up to 41% for the lowest resolution model considered.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Multi-facility analysis using metered power data to quantify MRI energy use and utility bill costs across scanner operating modes

This study quantifies the energy consumption of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners across discrete operating modes during routine clinical workflows, based solely on electrical power measurements. Although previous studies have investigated MRI energy consumption within single hospitals or specific clinical settings, this research provides a broader and more systematic analysis. Researchers analyzed electrical power data and applied a previously developed semi-automatic method for identifying MRI operating modes using load duration curves for 20 MRI scanners across four different U.S. healthcare facilities, encompassing outpatient, inpatient, and mixed-use clinical settings. A key innovation is the inclusion of localized hourly utility rates to estimate costs, a parameter absent in prior literature. Key findings indicate significant variability in energy and cost profiles between weekdays and weekends. Scanner characteristics, including magnet strength, manufacturer, vintage, location, and clinical setting, influenced average daily energy consumption and power thresholds for operating modes. Notably, the clinical setting of a scanner predominantly determines its energy use. For example, the scanners in outpatient facilities consumed more energy. The breakdown of energy usage and costs by operating modes showed scanners spend between 61% and 93% of their time in nonproductive modes, with one outlier spending 34%. Average daily energy use for the scanners in the study ranged from 160 to 1069 kWh, with energy costs ranging from $\$$9 to $\$$149. This study uses an existing framework to quantify MRI energy behavior, leading to insights that can enable improved performance and cost savings across different healthcare environments.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗