Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies - A Review

Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113295
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman
Review
Assessment of energy storage technologies: A review

Md Mustafizur Rahman, Abayomi Olufemi Oni, Eskinder Gemechu, Amit Kumar *
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 10-203 Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, 9211 116 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1H9,
Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Incorporating renewables in the power grid has challenges in terms of the stability, reliability, and acceptable
Energy storage operation of the power system network. One possible solution is to integrate an energy storage system with the
Levelized cost of electricity power network to manage unpredictable loads. The implementation of an energy storage system depends on the
Life cycle assessment
site, the source of electrical energy, and its associated costs and the environmental impacts. Moreover, an up-to-
Power network
date database with cost numbers, energy use, and resulting emissions is required for decision-making purposes.
Techno-economic assessment
This paper reviews the techno-economic and environmental assessments of mechanical, electro-chemical,
chemical, and thermal to give an update on recent developments and generate a relevant database for costs
and emissions. We reviewed 91 publications, 58 on techno-economic assessment and 33 on life cycle assessment.
We found that, because of economies of scale, the levelized cost of energy decreases with an increase in storage
duration. In addition, performance parameters such as round-trip efficiency, cycle life, and cycle length highly
influence the final costs and environmental footprints of various storage technologies. However, further research
is required to build a bottom-up model that can handle all the technical parameters to quantify the levelized cost
of energy and environmental footprints of the storage systems simultaneously.
1. Introduction Environmental regulations have set GHG emission reduction targets in

several sectors [5–7]. Renewable energy is a promising source that can
Global electricity generation is heavily dependent on fossil fuel- play a vital role in mitigating GHG emissions and fulfilling global energy
based energy sources such as coal, natural gas, and liquid fuels. There demand [8–11]. Among the renewable energy sources, globally solar
are two major concerns with the use of these energy sources: the and wind have shown remarkable growth, from 182 GW in 2009 to 660
impending exhaustion of fossil fuels, predicted to run out in <100 years GW in 2015 [12]. However, their integration into the existing power
[1], and the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants network has challenges in terms of efficiency, stability, and reliability, as
that adversely affect ecosystem services and human health [2–4]. most renewable sources are intermittent by nature [13–18]. This
Abbreviations: AULO, Agricultural and urban land occupation; BES, Bulk energy storage; BOP, Balance of plant; BP, Bridging power; CAES, Compressed air energy
storage; A-CAES, Adiabatic compressed air energy storage; C-CAES, Conventional compressed air energy storage; CC, Climate change; CED, Cumulative energy
demand; CSP, Concentrated solar power; EA, Energy arbitrage; EM, Energy management; ER, Energy requirements; ESS, Energy storage system; FFD, Fossil fuel
depletion; FES, Flywheel energy storage; FR, Frequency regulation; FWE, Freshwater eutrophication; FWET, Freshwater ecotoxicity; GHG, Greenhouse gas; GREET,
Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation; GWP, Global warming potential; ISC, Increase of self-consumption; HT, Human toxicity;
ISO, International Organization for Standardization; LB, Load balancing; LCA, Life cycle assessment; LCC, Life cycle cost; LCOE, Levelized cost of electricity; LCOS,
Levelized cost of storage; Li-ion, Lithium-ion; LAES, Liquid air energy storage; LMP, Lithium metal polymer; MRD, Mineral resource depletion; NaNiCl, Sodium nickel
chloride; NER, Net energy ratio; Ni-Cd, Nickel-cadmium; Na-S, Sodium-sulfur; NO, Network operation; OD, Ozone depletion; Pb-A, Lead-acid; PCS, Power conversion
system; PEM, Proton exchange membrane; PMF, Particulate matter formation; POF, Photochemical oxidant formation; PQ, Power quality; PR, Primary regulation; PS,
Peak shaving; PV, Photovoltaic; PVSC, Photovoltaic self-consumption; PVT, Photovoltaic thermal; RC, Replacement cost; RD, Resources depletion; REB, Reducing
electricity bill; RI, Renewable integration; SD, Smooth demand; SO, System operation; RPD, Reducing peak demand; RS, Renewables support; SU, Storage unit; SVR,
Support of voltage regulation; TA, Terrestrial acidification; TCC, Total capital cost; T&D, Transmission and distribution; TEA, Techno-economic assessment; TES,
Thermal energy storage; TS, Time-shift; UPS, Uninterruptible power supply; VRFB, Vanadium-redox flow battery; VRPbA, Valve-regulated lead acid; USDOE, United
States Department of Energy; Zn-Br, Zinc-bromine.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Kumar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113295
Received 28 May 2020; Received in revised form 2 August 2020; Accepted 3 August 2020
Available online 13 August 2020
0196-8904/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.M. Rahman et al. Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113295
intermittency could be mitigated by incorporating energy storage sys research are identified and recommendations are made. The literature
tems (ESSs) in the power grid [19–23]. review includes peer-reviewed journal papers, conference proceedings,
An ESS is a system that converts energy from one form, usually and scientific reports from governments and non-governmental
electricity, to another form that can be reserved in a storage medium and organizations.
then converted back to electricity when required [24,25]. An ESS stores The specific objectives of this article are to:
electricity when demand is low and discharges when demand is high,
providing great operational flexibility to the electrical grid and miti • provide a detailed overview on recent developments in utility-scale
gated intermittency [26–29]. Transportation, portable devices, and the energy storage technologies;
power network are the typical application areas for an energy storage • extensively review and compare the techno-economic performance
system [30–34]. of various energy storage systems;
Several studies have addressed the technical and economic aspects of • critically review the methods used in the literature to evaluate the
energy storage technologies. Most of these studies reviewed the tech environmental sustainability of energy storage technologies;
nical characteristics [35–40], the sizing of various ESSs [41–46], and • review the life cycle environmental performance of different utility-
challenges associated with their applications [47–52]. These studies scale energy storage systems; and
help us understand technical properties, such as efficiency, energy and • identify knowledge gaps in the literature relevant to the techno-
power densities, depth of discharge, lifetime, etc., and to determine the economic and life cycle assessments of utility-scale energy storage
size of energy storage technologies for renewable sources like solar and systems.
wind. Techno-economic assessments (TEAs) of energy storage technol
ogies evaluate their performance in terms of capital cost, life cycle cost, This paper is organized into four sections. Section 2 provides an
and levelized cost of energy in order to determine how to develop and overview on the status of energy storage technologies around the world.
deploy them in the power network. Battke et al. reviewed the impact of Sections 3 and 4 provide critical reviews and discuss the techno-
uncertainty in the inputs on the life cycle costs of electro-chemical economic and life cycle assessments of different energy storage tech
storage systems, focusing on four types of battery systems, lithium-ion, nologies, respectively. Section 5 outlines the research gaps and recom
lead-acid, sodium-sulfur, and vanadium-redox flow [53]. The review mendations for future research.
did not include mechanical, hydrogen, or thermal energy storage tech
nologies. A review article by Zakeri and Syri looked into a number of 2. An overview of energy storage technologies
studies and performed a TEA of energy storage technologies along with
uncertainty analysis [54]. The authors provided useful information on Although energy storage technologies can be categorized by storage
various cost components. However, the study does not include infor duration, response time, and function [24,64], the most popular method
mation on energy use or the environmental impacts of each technology. is by the form of energy stored, broadly classified into mechanical,
A recent study by Koohi-Fayegh and Rosen [55] includes a thorough thermochemical, chemical, electrical, and thermal energy [13,65–67].
review on the technical aspects and applications of different ESSs. The Fig. 1 presents a classification of energy storage technologies based on
review presents a brief discussion on the economics of ESSs but no the form of energy stored.
detailed information on cost parameters and how they are used in TEA. With increased renewable energy penetration in power grids, the use
Nor were the environmental aspects included in the review. of energy storage devices has become increasingly common. According
Given the growing environmental concerns and policy regulations, to the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) [68], the capacity of
the quantification of energy consumption and environmental footprints ESSs increased by 24% from 2010 to 2017. In 2017, the worldwide ca
has become increasingly important in the deployment of energy systems pacity of ESSs was about 171 GW from 1267 operational projects [68].
in the power network. Understanding the trade-off between the eco Table 1 shows the rated capacity and number of projects for each ESS
nomic viability and environmental performance of an ESS is crucial in type based on project status. Of 171 GW, China has the largest installed
order to make decisions towards sustainability. Life cycle assessment energy storage capacity (32 GW), followed by Japan (29 GW), and the
(LCA) is a useful tool to quantify the environmental performance of a US (24 GW). However, the number of operational projects in the US is
product or a system from cradle-to-grave. LCA is based on ISO 14040 494, the highest in the world. China and Japan have 94 and 90 projects,
[56] and IOS 14044 [57] from the International Organization for respectively, operating for various power grid applications [68]. Fig. 2
Standardization (ISO), which provides guidelines and a methodological shows the cumulative ESS capacity and the number of projects in the top
framework. LCA has four phases: goal and scope definition, inventory 10 countries in the world by installed capacity.
analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. LCA of ESSs involves Energy storage devices are used in the power grid for a variety of
estimating energy use and emissions as well as particulate matter at applications including electric energy time-shift, electric supply capac
various stages, from material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, ity, frequency and voltage support, and electricity bill management
and operation to final decommissioning [58–62]. A recent paper by [68]. The number of projects in operation by storage type for different
Pellow et al. [63] reviewed the environmental impacts of lithium-ion services is provided in Table 2. Although mechanical storage systems
(Li-ion) batteries in various applications including stationary and have the largest share in the world’s installed capacity, these systems are
transportation. But the review does not include a comparative envi mainly used in electrical energy time-shift (314 projects) and electric
ronmental assessment of different storage types. supply capacity (282 projects) (see Table 2). Electro-chemical batteries,
There is a scarcity of review articles that provide useful information such as lithium-ion (Li-ion), sodium-sulfur (Na-S), vanadium-redox flow
on the life cycle energy use and GHG emissions associated with different (VRF), and lead-acid (Pb-A) are used for all the services an ESS can
energy storage technologies focusing on utility-scale stationary appli provide.
cations. Moreover, many cost numbers presented in the earlier review
articles are not up-to-date. A study that looks extensively into ESSs’ 2.1. Mechanical storage
development and their economic and environmental performances is
needed. This paper, therefore, aims to provide a comprehensive review Among the mechanical storage systems, the pumped hydro storage
of state-of-the-art energy storage technologies and their applications. (PHS) system is the most developed commercial storage technology and
This review integrates both the economic and the environmental aspects makes up about 94% of the world’s energy storage capacity [68]. As of
of ESSs for stationary applications in the power network and provides a 2017, there were 322 PHS projects around the globe with a cumulative
database that incorporates the latest cost and emissions numbers of capacity of 164.63 GW. The rated capacity of PHS varies from 100 to
energy storage technologies. Finally, knowledge gaps in this area of 2000 MW [54]. It has high efficiency, long discharge duration and cycle
2
Energy storage technologies
Fig. 1. Classification of energy storage systems based on the form of energy stored [65].
Table 1
Rated installed capacity (GW) and number of projects for various energy storage technologies around the world [68].
Technology Operational Offline/under repair Contracted Announced De-commissioned Under construction
Mechanical storage* 166.20 (372) 0.28 (2) 2.31 (11) 11.63 (26) 0.08 (3) 5.95 (7)
Electro-chemical 2.03 (695) 0.05 (3) 0.95 (67) 0.63 (136) 0.09 (40) 0.70 (10)
Chemical storage# 0.01 (7) – 0.003 (3) 0.001 (1) 0.00007 (1) –
Thermal storage 3.21 (193) 0.21 (1) 0.13 (3) 0.16 (5) – 0.12 (2)
Values in parenthesis represent the number of projects.

*
Includes pumped hydro, compressed air, and flywheel storage systems.
#
Only hydrogen storage is considered.
Fig. 2. The top ten countries by installed capacity of ESSs [68].
life that makes it suitable for bulk energy applications. Australia is under construction and expected to be in operation in 2020
Compressed air energy storage (CAES) can be classified as conven [68].
tional and adiabatic. The operation principles of conventional and The installed capacity of flywheel energy storage (FES) system is 931
adiabatic CAES systems along with the other ESSs can be found in the MW [68]. Flywheels are usually used in frequency regulation, integra
supporting information (SI) document in section S1. The world’s first tion of renewable energy systems [70], and hybrid energy systems
conventional CAES plant was built in Germany in 1978 with a capacity [71,72]. They have a very high efficiency (80–90%), short response
of 290 MW [69]. According to the USDOE, 660 kW adiabatic CAES plant time, and long lifetime (see Table 3), making them favorable to use. The
is the only operational plant in the world, located in Toronto, Canada. A world’s largest capacity flywheel, located in Culham, United Kingdom
5 MW/10 MWh adiabatic CAES plant in Strathalbyn, South Australia, and used for frequency regulation, can supply up to 400 MW (2 large
3
Table 2 flywheels) for 30 s [68].

Number of projects in operation by storage type for different services [68].
Service Mechanical Electro- Chemical Thermal
storage chemical storage storage 2.2. Electro-chemical storage
storage
Electric energy time- 314 197 – 75 Electro-chemical battery storage systems have the third highest
shift installed capacity of 2.03 GW [68] (see table 1). The most widely used
Electric supply 282 79 – 66 utility-scale electro-chemical batteries are lead-acid, lithium-ion,
capacity
sodium-sulfur, nickel–cadmium, and flow batteries [73–75]. Among the
Renewables capacity 12 204 6 54
firming battery technologies, Li-ion has the highest market share with a capacity
Frequency regulation 77 168 1 4 of 1.66 GW, followed by sodium-based batteries (204.32 MW) and flow
Electricity bill 3 119 – 119 batteries (71.94 MW) [68].
management The Pb-A batteries are used for services like micro-grids, hybrid en
Renewables energy 15 139 3 57
time-shift
ergy systems, spinning reserve, bulk energy storage, frequency regula
Voltage support 46 133 – – tion, etc. [24]. According to DOE, the largest Pb-A project, 10 MW, is in
On-site renewable 1 135 1 9 Phoenix, Arizona, USA [68]. While the Pb-A batteries have high effi
generation shifting ciency, typically 70–80% (see Table 3), and lower capital cost, the main
Electric supply 92 52 – –
drawbacks of this technology are its short lifetime and intensive main
reserve capacity-
spinning tenance requirement. The lifetime is limited by the depth of discharge
On-site power 4 90 – – (DOD) and operating temperature, typically − 5 to +40 ◦ C [76]. The
Grid-connected 2 64 – 3 improved Pb-A battery, the advanced valve-regulated lead acid battery
commercial (VRPbA), can overcome these limitations. The lifetime of the VRPbA is
(reliability and
about ten times longer than the old Pb-A battery [36]. Although the
quality)
Electricity bill 3 77 1 2 power conversion system and balance of plant costs of conventional Pb-
management with A and VRPbA batteries are within the same range, the cost of the storage
renewables section could be 25–35% higher for the advanced one [77].
Transportation 51 2
– –
The Li-ion battery dominates the energy storage market. High effi
services
Distribution upgrade – 46 – – ciency, longer life cycle, and high power and energy density helped this
due to solar technology grow rapidly [48]. High capital cost remains the biggest
Grid-connected – 35 – 3 challenge for the use of these batteries in commercial-scale ESSs [48].
residential According to the DOE database, the world’s largest Li-ion battery stor
(reliability)
age was commissioned in 2017, in South Australia with power and en
Ramping 4 40 1 1
Load following 26 50 1 – ergy capacities of 100 MW and 129 MWh, respectively [68]. The project
(tertiary balancing) lifetime is 15 years and the capital expenditure was $32.35 million [68].
Microgrid capability 2 92 – 1 The storage system was designed to be used in frequency regulation,
Black start 1 36 – –
renewable capacity firming, and renewable energy time-shift services.
Transmission 1 24 1 3
congestion relief
The declining price, use of advanced materials, and improved safety
Transmission support – 17 – 3 features will make this a promising future technology [78].
Electric supply 1 20 – 17 Na-S technology is becoming increasingly attractive for large
reserve capacity- commercial-scale energy storage because of its high energy density,
non-spinning
longer lifetime, and almost zero maintenance [79–81]. This battery can
sustain 6–8 h of continuous discharge [68]. The world’s largest Na-S
Table 3
Technical parameters of different energy storage technologies.
Technology Rated power (MW) Specific energy (Wh/ Energy efficiency Discharge at rated Response time Lifetime (cycles) Self-discharge/day
kg) (%) capacity (h) (%)
PHS 100–5000 [24], 0.5–1.5 [24] 65–75 [90], 75–80 1–24+ [24] minutes [92] >15,000 [65] No [93], very small
1000–3000 [89] [91] [65]
CAES 5–300 [24], 100–3000 30–60 [24] 41–75 [65] 1–24+ [24] Seconds- >10,000 [65] No [93], small [65]
[89], 50–350 [94] minutes [92]
FES 0–0.25 [24], 0–1.65 10–30 [24], 5–80 85 [38], 80–90 0.000–0.01 [21] <1 cycle [92] 104–107 [65] 100 [35,65]
[92], 0–10 [89] [95] [65]
Pb-A 0–20 [24], 0.05–10 35–50 [98], 30–50 70–80 [99], 75–80 1–5 [21] <1/4 cycle 250–1500 [65], <0.1 [35], 0.1
[96], 0–40 [97] [24] [90] [92] 500–1000 [24] [100,101], 0.2 [102]
Li-ion 0–0.1 [24], 0.015–50 75–200 [24], 65–75 [65], 78 0.017–2+ [24] <1/4 cycle 600–1200 [65], 1 [100], 5 [35]
[103] 120–200 [104] [105], 88 [106] [48] <1000 [24]
Na-S 0.05–8 [24], 0.05–34 100 [108], 175 70–85 [65], 84–87 4–8 [21] <1/4 cycle 2500–4500 [65], No [110]
[107] [109], 150–240 [24] [35] [48] 2500 [24]
Ni-Cd 0–40 [24] 50–75 [24], 45–80 75 [21], 60–80 6–8 [111] <1/4 cycle 1500–3000 [65], 0.2 [101], 0.3 [35]
[98] [65] [48] 2000–2500 [24]
VRFB 0.03–3 [24], 12 [112] 25–35 [112], 10–30 60–75 [65], 75–85 2–12 [21] <1/4 cycle >10,000 [65], Small [65]
[24] [113] [48] >12,000 [24]
Zn-Br 0.05–2 [24] 70–90 [114], 75–85 65–75 [115], 2–5 [21] <1/4 cycle 1000–3650 [65], Very small [65]
[113] 75–85 [113] [92] >2000 [24]
Hydrogen 0–50 [24], 0.1–15 [38] 400–1000 [114] 35–40 [116], 42 12+ [21] <1/4 cycle 103–104 [65], 0 [65]
[117] [92] >1000 [24]
Thermal 50–250 [83] 80–200 [24] 14–18 [118] 1–24+ [24] – 5–15* [24] 0.05–1 [24]
*
The unit is years.
4
battery storage was deployed by the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity significantly in the last few years as a result of increased use of ESSs
Authority and has a capacity of 108 MW [82]. The system operates in a [119–121], and this aspect is captured better in the recent research ar
time-shift mode, that is, it stores energy when demand is low and dis ticles. This section provides a detailed review on cost models, techno-
charges electricity to the grid when demand is high [82]. economic performance, and future cost projections of different ESSs
Although Ni-Cd batteries have high energy density and low main (PHS, CAES, FES, Pb-A, Li-ion, Na-S, Ni-Cd, VRFB, Zn-Br, H2, and TES).
tenance, disposing of the toxic metals nickel (Ni) and cadmium (Cd) is a All the cost numbers are in 2020 USD unless otherwise mentioned. An
challenge [35]. The life cycle of Ni-Cd batteries could reach up to 50,000 inflation rate of 2% was used to adjust the costs [3].
cycles for a 10% depth of discharge [37]. Golden Valley Electric Asso
ciation’s Battery Energy Storage System is the world’s biggest Ni-Cd 3.1. Cost models
battery system. It was designed to operate at a rated capacity of 27
MW for 15 min discharge. It was commissioned on September 19, 2003 The power conversion system (PCS), storage unit (SU), and balance
and designed for a 25-year lifetime. The expenditure for the project was of plant (BOP) are the three main components of an energy storage
$35 million [68]. The services it provides are black start, electric supply system. The PCS includes several electrical power devices (e.g., inverter,
reserve capacity, grid connected commercial (reliability and quality), transformer, etc.) that regulate voltage, current, and frequency based on
grid connected residential (reliability), and voltage support. the load pattern. The SU contains the storage medium: battery cells in
The main advantage of flow batteries is that power and energy rating electro-chemical storage systems, storage tank in CAES, and water res
design can be done independently, which makes them suitable for ervoirs in PHS. The BOP refers to all the remaining items that are not
power- and energy-related applications [54]. The operation principle of parts of PCS and SU. These are research and development, trans
flow batteries can be found in the SI document. Flow batteries can portation and installation, land and access roads, and so on [54,122].
discharge electricity for up to 10 h [78]. According to the DOE database, The cost models developed in the TEA studies are mainly based on the
the largest energy storage with a VRF battery is located in Dalian, China, above-mentioned components. Fig. 3 shows a generalized cost structure
and has a capacity of 200 MW/800 MWh [68]. The system is used for for the TEA of ESSs. A few studies estimated only the total capital cost
electric energy time-shift, black start, renewables capacity firming, (TCC), while others calculated the life cycle cost (LCC). For example,
renewable energy time-shift, and resiliency. The largest Zn-Br flow Mostafa et al. calculated the LCC of various ESSs considering the TCC,
battery, with a power capacity of 25 MW and an energy capacity of 100 replacement cost (RC), operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, and
MWh, is situated in Kazakhstan and is used for electric energy time-shift end-of-life cost [123]. Zakeri and Syri [54] and Schoenung [92] used a
and renewable energy time-shift [68]. similar approach. The LCC is a better indicator than the TCC as it in
cludes all the cost components in the lifetime of an ESS. While a few
2.3. Hydrogen and thermal storage studies were restricted to the TCC [37,66,124], some left out the
replacement cost [53,125,126]. The replacement cost is vital for electro-
According to the DOE database, the two largest plants in the world chemical ESSs as most of the batteries have a limited lifetime and need
(at 6 MW) are located in Germany [68]. Energiepark Mainz was the first replacements after a certain period, i.e., 10–15 years for Li-ion [39].
multi MW project to use proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis According to Das et al., a battery’s initial cost and replacement cost are
with a discharge duration of 4 h and 20 min. The capital expenditure for similar [127]. In addition to the TCC and LCC, some studies, such as
the project was $19 million [68]. The high capital cost and low con those by Kapila et al. [128,129], Mostafa et al. [123], Thaker et al. [83],
version efficiency are the two main constraints in implementing this and others [70,130,131] estimated the levelized cost of electricity
technology for commercial-scale grid applications. (LCOE). The advantage of estimating the LCOE is that it indicates the
Thermal storage system has the second highest installed capacity of price at which the electricity should be sold to cover the cost elements
3.21 GW [68]. Thermal energy storage is a promising technology that over an ESS’s lifetime [129]. This indicator allows the comparison
can reduce dependence on fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.). among different ESSs to be compared provided they have the same
Although the growth rate of thermal energy storage is predicted to be operational conditions, such as number of cycles per year and discharge
11% from 2017 to 2022, the intermittency of solar insolation constrains duration [132–134]. A detailed calculation method for the TCC, LCC,
growth [83]. Thermal energy storage (TES) stores energy in the form of and LCOE can be found in section S2 of the SI.
heat to use when there is high demand [83]. The typical applications of The TEA approaches used in different ESS studies can be categorized
TES include energy shifting, peak shaving, and electric bill management as: top-down, bottom-up, or a combination. The bottom-up approach
[68,84]. Although TES systems can be used for centralized or distributed uses engineering first principles to characterize the storage system and
heating/cooling [84], the focus of this paper is on TES systems for design the equipment used in each unit operation, and to determine
electricity generation. TES systems can be classified into sensible heat component costs. Cost estimation is transparent, and the results can be
TES, latent heat TES, and thermochemical storage [85,86]. reproducible. However, there are assumptions involved when data is not
Each energy storage system has unique characteristics in terms of available and need to be validated. A top-down approach, on the other
efficiency, specific energy, cycle duration, self-discharge, etc. These hand, uses aggregated data and so lacks process specificness. The results,
properties determine the suitability of a particular storage device for therefore, are usually opaque and details are not shared [135]. Recent
various services (e.g., supply capacity, time-shift, frequency, and voltage TEA studies by Thaker et al. [83] and Kapila et al. [128] used a bottom-
regulation, etc.). Detailed information on these applications can be up approach to design the system components of thermal and mechan
found in earlier studies [47,48,55,87,88]. The technical features of ical energy storage, respectively, and to estimate the capital cost using
different ESSs can be found in Table 3. scientific principles. For example, technical parameters such as head of
water, flow rate, velocity of water, etc., were used to design the PHS
3. Review of the techno-economic assessments of energy storage capacity [128]. Design parameters such as heat transfer coefficient,
technologies temperature, pressure, flow rate, etc., were used to design the heat ex
changers for the thermal storage [83]. Both studies developed cost
Up-to-date peer reviewed journal articles and reports on techno- functions to estimate the system TCC [83,128]. Studies by Schmidt et al.
economic assessments of energy storage technologies were identified used a bottom-up approach to estimate the material and production
using academic search engines, such as Google Scholar and Science costs of various ESSs [132,136]. Another example of a bottom-up study
Direct. Studies older than 10 years were eliminated as publications Wu et al.’s, in which the LCOE of an integrated liquid air energy storage
before 2010 are covered in earlier reviews [45,48,53,54]. In addition, (LAES) and thermal storage was assessed [137]. Other studies consid
the costs of most energy storage technologies have come down ered the costs of PCS, SU, and BOP to estimate the TCC without
5
PCS cost
Total capital cost Storage unit cost
Balance of plant
Replacement cost
cost
Life cycle cost
Fixed and
variable O&M
costs
End-of-life cost
Fig. 3. ESS’s generalized total life cycle cost structure.
developing any cost functions of system components discharge, capacity factor, solar multiple, and discount rate in the un
[53,54,131,138,139]. The studies by Karellas and Tzouganatos [140] certainty analysis of LCOE of different thermal ESSs. Similarly, Kapila
and Mostafa et al. [123] used a bottom-up approach in system design et al. [128] considered the ranges of various economic and technical
and top-down in cost estimation. Table 4 shows the cost items for the parameters and studied their impact in the uncertainty analysis of
various ESSs found in our review. different mechanical energy storage. The LCOE of TES (latent heat
The variation in costs among the studies are due to different as storage with one tank) can range from $6/MWh to $43/MWh because of
sumptions in efficiency, cycle life, discharge duration, commodity price, the commodity price range of phase change materials [83]. The LCOE
and so on. The uncertainties in costs of mature technologies, such as PHS for PHS can range from $74/MWh to $138/MWh as a result of variation
and Pb-A battery, are relatively lower than costs of emerging technol in input parameters such as head, velocity and flow rate of the heater,
ogies, such as Li-ion, VRFB, FES, and fuel cell. Although the differences efficiency, and duration of discharge [128]. Baumann et al. presented a
in input cost parameters and some technical assumptions are consider range in the LCC of various electro-chemical batteries [141]. The highest
able, there have been few uncertainty analyses conducted to address the level of uncertainty is found in the VRFB and is a result of the quality of
variabilities to improve the reliability of the estimates. A handful of available data. Along with the technical and cost parameters, such as
studies [83,128,132,141] performed uncertainty analyses. The impact number of cycles and discount rate, future improvement is a source of
of uncertainties in input data and assumptions can be realized from the uncertainty of future LCOE of ESSs [132].
LCOE ranges published by Thaker et al. [83] and Kapila et al. [128].
Thaker et al. [83] included plant capacity and lifetime, duration of
3.2. Economic performance of various ESSs
Table 4 Although most of the studies used LCOE as a performance indicator

Cost items of various energy storage systems [13,40,53,54,123,131,142–153]. to compare various ESSs for different applications, a few studies used,
ESS Storage section PCS cost BOP cost O&M cost
for example, payback period [137,154], TCC [148,155], and benefit/
cost ($/kWh) ($/kW) ($/kW) ($/kW-yr.) cost ratio [77,150]. This section reviews the economic performance of
different storage technologies. The costs are summarized in Table 5 (for
PHS 5–136 403–4644 3–30 2–10
CAES (A) 93–141 868–960 3–30 2–4 mechanical storage), Table 6 (for electro-chemical storage) and Table 7
CAES (U) 2–130 432–1674 3–30 2–5 (for hydrogen and thermal storage).
FES 216–162,000 32–756 54–300 5–6
Pb-A 132–915, 220a 211–648, 46–140, 3–26, 8a 3.2.1. Mechanical storage
211a 95a
Li-ion 282–4104, 189 a
161–4320, 0–130, 95a 2–123, 8 a PHS and CAES are the bulk energy storage technologies with a lower
211a cost per unit energy than the other ESSs [156]. Long life and storage
Na-S 194–1080, 465 a
221–3240, 68–130, 2–54, 8a duration, along with large capacity, are the main advantages of these
211a 95a technologies [123]. Several studies examined the economic perfor
Ni-Cd 609–1210 281–355 76–130 4–26
mances of PHS and CAES. Studies by Schmidt et al. [132], Mostafa et al.
VRFB 142–1080, 393a 351–1620, 11–151, 4–51, 8a
211a 95a [123], and Jülch [131] show that PHS has the lowest LCOE among the
Zn-Br 192–783 163–810 11–151 3–7 mature ESSs. Mostafa et al. found that the LCOE for PHS is $0.08 lower
Hydrogen 2–15 540–4809 11–43 17–48 that that of underground CAES per kWh electricty [123]. Compared to a
Supercapacitor 108–101,520 108–864 11–108 1–6 conventional hydro power plant, the construction and installation costs
(A) = aboveground and (U) = underground. of PHS are twice as much for the same capacity. However, the O&M
a
2025 cost predictions [148]. costs are similar [157]. For the CAES, the compressed air can be stored
6
Table 5
A summary of TEAs of mechanical storage systems.
ESS Capital cost Capital cost LCOE Applications Future Sensitivity/ Comments Refs.
($/kW) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) cost uncertainty
PHS 850–2126 22–58 0.07–0.14 EA N Y/Y Single reservoir and two-reservoir scenarios were [128]
considered. The total investment cost ranges from $208
to $572 million for capacities of 98–491 MW.
– – 0.17 LT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is $54/kW for the long-term [123]
application.
– – 1.09–2.16, LT and ST Y Y/N The LCOE ranges represent the long- and short-term [131]
0.06–0.11 applications, respectively.
1768–3328 110–208 – 16 h discharge Y N/N The capital cost refers to the total project cost. [148]
– – – Long duration N N/N The present worth of a 10-year operation of PHS with 8 h [145]
duration is $2868/kW.
1396–2538 – – EA N N/N The annualized return on investment was calculated for [167]
a range of capital costs.
1827–5237 304–524 – BES and RI N N/N The energy capacity ranges from 1680 to 14,000 MWh. [168]
– 15–99 – Wind power N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [37]
2252–3285 167–411 0.18–0.25 BES N N/N Costs vary with capacity from 280 to 1300 MW. The net [70]
present installed cost ranges from $6402 to $9098/kW.
1928 – – LB Y Y/N PHS scenarios are more cost effective because of their [169]
long lifetime of 50 years.
– – 0.04 – N N/N There is no information about the capital cost. [170]
624 104 – – N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [66]
2048 256 – EA N Y/N The PHS is modeled as a 300 MW/2400 MWh system. [171]
The benefit to cost ratio is 1.32.
636–2120 5–106 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N The capital cost per cycle ranges from $0.0002 to $0.02/ [155]
kWh.
– – – SO, NO, and Y Y/Y 12 stationary applications were considered for the [132]
Consumption analysis. The authors presented the LCOE from 2015 to
2050.
– – 0.02–0.31 Utility N Y/Y The LCOE was calculated from the real operating plants’ [130]
capital cost.
1641 – 0.28 Wind energy N N/N The costs are for a 100 MW system. [158]
curtailment
– – – Back-up power N Y/Y The LCC of A-CAES ranges from about $2.18–2.27 [172]
million for a MW scale plant.
CAES – – 0.07–0.10 BES N Y/N 10 MW advanced A-CAES with 8-hour storage. The TCC [173]
is about $9.5 million.
645–750 1–33 0.06–0.07 EA N Y/Y Salt cavern, porous formation, and hard rock cavern [128]
storage mediums were considered. The investment cost
ranges from $63 to $286 million for C-CAES depending
on the storage medium for capacities of 81–404 MW.
1999–2364 1–54 0.10–0.13 EA N Y/Y Salt cavern, porous formation, and hard rock cavern [128]
storage mediums were considered. The investment cost
ranges from $149 to $743 million for A-CAES depending
on the storage medium for capacities of 60–298 MW.
– – 0.25 LT N Y/N Underground CAES. The amortized capital cost is [123]
approximately $65/kW for long-term application.
– – 0.26 LT N Y/N Aboveground CAES. The amortized capital cost is [123]
approximately $120/kW for long-term application.
– – >2, LT and ST Y Y/N The LCOE ranges represent long- and short-term [131]
0.12–0.14 applications, respectively, for C-CAES.
– – 2–5, LT and ST Y Y/N The LCOE ranges represent the long- and short-term [131]
0.08–0.13 applications for A-CAES, respectively.
– – – Long duration N N/N The present worth of a 10-year operation of CAES with [145]
8-hour duration is $1781/kW.
952–1269 – – EA N N/N The annualized return on investment was calculated for [167]
a range of capital costs.
1218–1523 73–152 – BES and RI N N/N Underground CAES. The energy capacity ranges from [168]
1080 to 2700 MWh.
1101–1421 18–210 0.14–0.24 BES N N/N Costs vary with capacity from 50 to 103 MW. The net [70]
present installed cost ranges from $4934 to $5452/kW.
– – 0.04 – N N/N Advanced A-CAES. There is no information about the [170]
TCC.
– – 0.05 – N N/N C-CAES. There is no information about the TCC. [170]
940, 2350 59, 118 – – N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. The capital [66]
costs are for underground and aboveground CAESs,
respectively.
2128 266 – EA N Y/N The aboveground CAES is modeled as a 100 MW/800 [171]
MWh system. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.27.
424–848 2–53 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N The capital cost per cycle is $0.0003–$0.02/kWh. [155]
2050.
(continued on next page)
7
Table 5 (continued )
– – 0.02–0.16 Utility N Y/Y The LCOE was calculated from the real operating plants’ [130]
capital cost.
1607, 2356 0.23, 0.28 Wind energy N N/N The costs are for C-CAES and advanced A-CAES, [158]
curtailment respectively.
– – 0.64 ST N Y/N The amortized capital cost is $65/kW for short-term [123]
application.
FES 1123–2995 4493–11,981 – 0.25 h discharge Y N/N The capital cost represents the total project cost. [148]
– – – Short duration N N/N The present worth of a 10-year operation of FES with [145]
0.25-hour duration is $1103–$1154/kW.
2373–2700 9491–10,708 – FR and RI N N/N The power and energy capacities are 20 MW and 5 MWh, [168]
respectively.
2627 10,510 0.41 FR N N/N The net present installed cost is $4784/kW. [70]
– 437–2860 – N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [124]
2050.
– – – Back-up power N Y/Y The LCC is about $0.05 million for fast response. [172]
1872 – FR N N/N Beacon power’s composite rotor flywheel [174]. [162]
804 – – UPS N N/N Active Power’s 4340 alloy steel rotor flywheel [175]. [162]
Y = yes, N = no.
EA = energy arbitrage, BES = bulk energy storage, RI = renewable integration, FR = frequency regulation, LB = load balancing, PQ = power quality, BP = bridging
power, EM = energy management, SO = system operation, NO = network operation, A-CAES = adiabatic compressed air energy storage C-CAES = conventional
compressed air energy storage, PS = peak shaving, ISC = increase of self-consumption, UPS = uninterruptible power supply, ST = short-term, LT = long-term.
in underground caverns or aboveground vessels. Although underground parameters of the electro-chemical ESSs, such as discharge duration and
storage provides greater cost competitiveness [123,128], aboveground cycle life, as well as depth of discharge [132,176]. Several studies
pressure vessels are easy to construct and implement [54]. The size of assessed the LCC and LCOE of different stationary applications. Battke
underground reservoirs facilitates longer discharge time, typically 8–26 et al., for example, estimated the LCOE of Pb-A, Li-ion, Na-S, and VRF
h, whereas aboveground vessels are usually designed to discharge for batteries and found a wide range of LCOEs, depending on the application
only 2–4 h [54]. Although underground CAES is a cheaper option, [53]. The energy applications (time-shift, T&D investment deferral,
finding and verifying airtight storage is a challenge. The techno- energy management, and increase of self-consumption) are cheaper than
economic feasibility of C-CAES and A-CAES was assessed in a few the power applications (frequency regulation and voltage regulation). In
studies. Kapila et al. found a higher LCOE for A-CAES than for C-CAES the energy applications, the electricity throughput is higher because of
[128]. Fuel cost is the major contributor to the total LCC of C-CAES, and the higher battery use with longer discharge time. The relative ranking
capital cost in the case of A-CAES. Similar results were obtained by of batteries across various applications depends on cycle life and number
Caralis et al. [158]. The estimated LCOE per kWh for C-CAES is about of cycles, which ultimately dictate investment and replacement costs
$0.05 lower than for A-CAES. [53]. For a small-scale application, Pb-A is cost competitive. Li-ion
Economies of scale dictate that large-scale plants like PHS or CAES be performs well in applications with a high energy/power ratio and
built for longer discharge duration (>8–10 h) [70]. Bulk ESSs (e.g., PHS large number of cycles [53]. The LCOEs estimated by Baumann et al.
and CAES) tend to exhibit the lowest cost per unit energy because of [141] differ from one scenario to the next mainly due to different
economies of scale [156]. Kapila et al. found that the bigger capacity operational characteristics considered in the applications. The daily
PHS plants show greater cost competitiveness at a scale factor of 0.52 number of cycles for electric-time shift, PV self-consumption, primary
[128]. The scale factors of conventional and adiabatic CAES systems are regulation, and renewable support are 2, 1, 34, and 1.12, respectively,
0.87 and 0.88, respectively. and the discharge durations are 4, 3.2, 1, and 10 h, respectively. Bau
FES has already become feasible for short duration grid applications mann et al. mentioned that lower capital costs for the PCS and BOP lead
[159–161]. FES was found to be economical when operated for >5000 to lower LCOEs in energy applications than in the power applications
cycles per year with a storage duration of <30 min [132]. The LCOEs [141]. Li-ion performs better economically in all the applications than
reported by Mostafa et al. [123] and Akhil et al. [70] are within the the other batteries. Short lifetime and low efficiency are the main
range of $0.41–$0.64/kWh. According to Nikolaidis and Poullikkas, the challenges of Pb-A. The performance of a VRFB is comparable with Li-
cost per cycle could go up to $1.62/kWh [155]. Flywheels can be made ion for energy applications. However, due to increased capital cost for
of steel or composte materials. The capital cost of a 20 MW frequency large stacks and membrane area, a VRFB is not suitable for power ap
regulation plant by Beacon Power is about $1872/kW (high-speed plications. According to Jülch, application scenarios are characterized
composite flywheel). In contrast, the total capital cost of Active Power’s by size, duration of discharge, and number of cycles [131]. Zakeri and
250 kW flywheel is about $804/kW (low-speed steel flywheel) [162]. Syri changed the duration of discharge from 1 h to 8 h and observed a
The material cost of carbon fiber composite is 20 times the cost of steel drop in LCOE with increased duration of discharge [54]. According to
[163]. High-speed flywheels use costly magnetic bearings, and low- Staffell and Rustomji, Li-ion achieves a larger profit as a result of its high
speed flywheels typically use inexpensive mechanical bearings efficiency [156]. Na-S’s lower capital cost leads to a higher rate of return
[164–166]. (ROR). Because of its long cycle life and high efficiency, as well as strong
capital cost reduction potential, the Li-ion battery is expected to domi
3.2.2. Electro-chemical storage nate the energy market by 2030 [132]. Nikolaidis and Poullikkas esti
Electro-chemical batteries can be used for various applications mated the LCOE for several electro-chemical ESSs [155]. According to
whose characteristics dictate the cost of electricity. The TCC and LCOE the authors, the low investment cost of Pb-A is the reason it is widely
in various applications are primarily influenced by the technical used in the energy storage market. Although Ni-Cd has a longer lifetime
8
Table 6
A summary of TEAs of electro-chemical storage systems.
Pb-A – – 0.63 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is about $60/kW for [123]
medium-term application.
– – 0.36–1.38 TS, PVSC, PR, and RS N Y/Y The LCOE varies with Li-ion chemistry. The electric [141]
time-shift has the lowest LCOE, primary regulation
the highest.
– – 0.18–0.22 LT and ST Y Y/N The LCOE is for short-term application with 100 MW/ [131]
400 MWh.
– – – Long and short N N/N The costs are for advanced Pb-A battery. The present [145]
duration worth ranges from $826 to $3330/kW depending on
the duration and frequency of discharge.
– – – Long and short N N/N The costs are for an advanced Pb-A battery with [145]
duration carbon enhanced electrodes. The present worth
varies from $748 to $2411/kW depending on the
duration and frequency of discharge.
1135–5489 507–4535 – BES and RI, TS, FR, N N/N The energy capacities are 200, 0.25–50, and 3.2–48 [168]
T&D support, etc. MWh for bulk energy storage, frequency regulation,
and utility T&D grid support, respectively. The LCOE
varies with the application.
1404–7013 409–5615 0.15–1.4 BES, FR, RI, utility N N/N The costs are for advanced Pb-A battery. The LCOE [70]
T&D, etc. varies with the application.
– – 0.33–2.9 TS, T&D investment N Y/Y The energy time-shift has the lowest LCOE, frequency [53]
deferral, EM, ISC, FR, regulation the highest.
and SVR
318–636 212–424 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N The capital cost range per cycle is between $0.15 and [155]
$3.12/kWh.
Consumption analysis. The authors presented the LCOE from 2015
to 2050.
– – 0.04–0.12 Utility N Y/Y The LCOE was calculated from the real operating [130]
plants’ capital cost.
– – – EA, FR, T&D upgrade N Y/Y The authors provided a range of LCCs for Poland, [177]
deferral, PS, and ISC Germany, and Switzerland.
– – – SD, RPD, and REB N Y/N The system would be feasible if the Pb-A battery cost [178]
is reduced to $0.06/kWh per cycle.
Li- – – 0.32–1.34 TS, T&D investment N Y/Y Energy management has the lowest LCOE, voltage [53]
ion deferral, EM, ISC, FR, regulation the highest.
and SVR
– – 0.83–1.70 TS, PVSC, PR, and RS N Y/Y The LCOE is for the VRPbA battery. Electric time-shift [141]
has the lowest LCOE and primary regulation the
highest.
400 MWh.
– – 0.66 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is about $124/kW for the [123]
– – – Long and short N N/N The present worth ranges from $1126 to $3400/kW [145]
duration depending on the duration and frequency of
discharge.
1207–5945 1183–5247 0.11–1.40 FR, RI, utility T&D, N N/N The net present installed costs range from $2386 to [70]
etc. $8951/kW for frequency regulation and from $2745
to $13,366/kW for utility T&D. The LCOE varies with
the application.
4610 2882 – N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [66]
1272–4240 636–2650 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N The capital cost per cycle is between $0.08 and [155]
$1.10/kWh.
to 2050.
– – – EA, FR, T&D upgrade N Y/Y The authors provided a range of LCCs for Poland, [177]
– – – SD, RPD, and REB N Y/N The system would be feasible if the Li-ion battery cost [178]
is reduced to $0.09/kWh per cycle.
Na-S – – – Long and short N N/N The present worth is from $2861 to $2965/kW [145]
duration depending on the frequency of discharge.
9
– – 0.31 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is about $54/kW for [123]
– 495 – – N N/N There is no information about the LCOE. [124]
– – 0.29–0.34 – N N/N The net present cost ranges from $220 to $268 [179]
million.
3700–4774 531–662 – BES and RI, TS, FR, N N/N The energy capacities are 300 and 7.2 MWh for bulk [168]
T&D support, etc. energy storage and utility T&D grid support,
respectively. The LCOE varies with the application.
3665–4098 525–611 0.29–0.0.33 BES and utility T&D N N/N The net present installed costs range from $6885 to [70]
$7280/kW for bulk energy storage and from $7242 to
$7885/kW for utility T&D. The LCOE varies with the
application.
– – 0.23–1.75 TS, T&D investment N Y/Y Energy management has the lowest LCOE, voltage [53]
and SVR
>1060 318–530 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N The capital cost per cycle is between $0.07 and [155]
$0.40/kWh.
to 2050.
2783 – 0.62 Wind energy N N/N The costs are for 85 MW Na-S ESS. [158]
curtailment
Ni- – – 0.67–1.1 – N N/N The net present cost is from $498 to $585 million. [179]
Cd – – 0.69 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is about $113/kW for [123]
1729 1729 – N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [66]
VRFB – – – Long and short N N/N The present worth is from $1173 to $3846/kW [145]
discharge.
– – 0.50–3.60 TS, PVSC, PR, and RS N Y/Y Electric time-shift has the lowest LCOE, primary [141]
regulation the highest.
400 MWh.
– – 0.48 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is about $76/kW for [123]
3585–4416 740–990 – BES and RI, TS, FR, N N/N The energy capacities are 250 and 4–40 MWh for bulk [168]
– 716 – Wind power N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [37]
1912–4405 880–978 0.52–0.56 BES, utility T&D, etc. N N/N The net present installed cost is from $$7273 to [70]
8445/kW. The LCOE varies with the application.
– – 0.24–1.61 TS, T&D investment N Y/Y Energy management has the lowest LCOE, voltage [53]
and SVR
636–1590 159–1060 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N The capital cost per cycle is between $0.12 and [155]
$0.78/kWh.
to 2050.
– – – EA, FR, T&D upgrade N Y/Y The authors provide a range of LCCs for Poland, [177]
– – – BES N N/N The ratios of benefit/cost are 5–6% and 43%, [150]
respectively, for day ahead market and reserve
market.
Zn-Br – – – Long and short N N/N The present worth is from $819 to $2953/kW [145]
discharge.
– – 0.50 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is about $54/kW for the [123]
1731–2405 346–1612 – BES and RI, TS, FR, N N/N The energy capacities are 250 and 5–50 MWh for bulk [168]
– 597 – Wind power N N/N The costs are taken from several studies. [37]
1925–3468 385–1734 0.23–1.03 BES, utility T&D, FR, N N/N The net present installed cost is from $4047 to [70]
RI, etc. $6681/kW. The LCOE varies with the application.
742–2650 159–1060 – PQ, BP, and EM N N/N [155]
10
The capital cost per cycle is between $0.06 and

$0.71/kWh.
to 2050.
– – – BES N N/N The ratios of benefit/cost are 5–6% and 43%, [150]
respectively, for day ahead market and reserve
market.
Y = yes, N = no.
EA = energy arbitrage, BES = bulk energy storage, RI = renewable integration, FR = frequency regulation, LB = load balancing, PQ = power quality, BP = bridging
power, EM = energy management, SO = system operation, NO = network operation, PS = peak shaving, ISC = increase of self-consumption, SD = smooth demand,
RPD = reducing peak demand, REB = reducing electricity bill, TS = time-shift, SVR = support of voltage regulation, PVSC = PV self-consumption, PR = primary
regulation, RS = renewables support, VRPbA = valve-regulated lead acid, ST = short-term, MT = medium-term, LT = long-term.
and higher specific energy than Pb-A, its higher investment cost is [190–192]. Thaker et al. estimated the investment cost and LCOE for
problem. The LCOE of electro-chemical ESSs is expected to decrease sensible heat, latent heat, and thermochemical storage systems [83].
with improvements in material and technologies [131]. Schmidt et al. The LCOE for indirect sensible heat storage using two tanks is higher
forecasted a decrease in the LCOE of electro-chemical ESSs, which could than for direct sensible heat storage using two tanks because the former
challenge the growth of PHSs and CAESs [132]. For a discharge duration has a higher investment cost due to the use of an extra heat exchanger,
of <4 h and <300 cycles per year, Li-ion would be attractive by 2030. which includes extra piping, pumps, and valves. With an increase in
For a longer discharge duration and number of cycles, the VRFB would capacity, the LCOE decreases, and there is a strong relationship between
be competitive, according to Schmidt et al. [132]. Moreover, the round- discharge time and LCOE [193–195]. Flueckiger et al. varied the solar
trip efficiency and cycle life will be the most influential parameters in multiple and storage hour to find the best combination [149]. The au
future LCOE calculations [132]. For example, a 16% efficiency thors observed a decrease in LCOE with storage hour for solar multiple
improvement for a VRFB from 2015 to 2030 can make it cheaper than values of 2–4. However, the LCOE was found to increase with a solar
the Li-ion ESS. multiple of 1. This is because without sufficient solar radiation the
storage system adds capital cost but cannot provide enough power. The
3.2.3. Hydrogen storage LCOE decreases from $0.80/kWh to $0.69/kWh when the discharge
Several studies considered the integration of renewable sources like time increases from 1 h to 8 h [193]. Similarly, Seitz et al. found that the
solar and wind with hydrogen storage from a technical perspective LCOE decreases with increased capacity for latent heat thermal energy
[180–184]. However, the concept of integrating hydrogen storage into storage [194]. Boudaoud et al. determined 8 h to be the optimum
the electrical network depends on the system’s economy [140]. Parra discharge time with a solar multiple of 1.6 [193]. Wu et al. examined a
and Patel report the capital cost and LCOEs for hydrogen production thermochemical ESS integrated with liquid air [137]. The round-trip
using electricity from the Swiss grid [185]. On the kW scale, the LCOE efficiency is about 13% higher than the only thermochemical ESS’s ef
for PEM electrolyzers is about 15% higher than alkaline’s due to the ficiency. The energy density is 3.4 times higher [137].
higher capital cost for stacks [185]. However, the difference in LCOE for
these two technologies is <5% on the MW scale due to economies of 3.3. Future cost estimates
scale [185]. A similar power-to-gas pathway was used by Preuster et al.
[186] and Jülch [131]. Jülch assumed that the H2 will be stored un Several recent studies presented the future costs of ESSs, which are
derground [131]. These studies did not consider fuel cell for electricity vital for investment decisions [119,131,132,136,147,148,209–211].
generation. Depending on the storage medium, storage costs range from Mongird et al. projected the future cost of electro-chemical ESSs for
$17/kWh for aboveground storage to $0.002–$55/kWh for under 2025 [148]. A 25% cost reduction is possible for the Li-ion PCS cost from
ground storage [54]. Using underground storage rather than above the 2018 cost due to increased production capacity. The projection as
ground lowers the cost of electricity by 6–18% [179]. A power-to-power sumes that the PCS for all the batteries would exhibit uniform cost
pathway was used by Mostafa et al. [123] and Ferrero et al. [187]. reduction. For the BOP, a 5% reduction was assumed from 2018. This
Ferrero et al. reported the lowest LCOE for the combination of alkaline reduction would be possible because of lower permitting costs and
electrolysis with a PEM fuel cell among the various electrolyzer and fuel planning with an increased number of installations. Multiples ranging
cell combinations because of the alkaline electrolyzer’s low capital cost from 0.65 for Li-ion to 0.85 for Pb-A were used to forecast 2025 costs
and high efficiency [187]. Mostafa et al. estimated the LCOE for from 2018 costs [148]. These multiples were obtained from the cost
hydrogen storage to be $0.48/kWh for medium-term stationary appli information for various ESSs in the years 2018 and 2025 as reported in
cations such as time-shift, transmission congestion relief, and substation Kleinberg [147]. Mongird et al. also calculated the TCC using the pre
on-site power [123]. Marocco et al. found a similar LCOE in a micro-grid dicted cost inputs [148]. Lazard forecasted the TCC of Li-ion, VRF, Zn-
application of hydrogen storage on a wind farm [188]. A recent study by Br, Pb-A, and advanced Pb-A batteries [210]. The reduction in the
Nguyen at al. assessed a grid-connected hydrogen production system TCC ranges from 6% for advanced Pb-A to 36% for Li-ion battery. The
through alkaline and PEM electrolyzers and found similar costs for both main drivers behind the huge reduction for the Li-ion are market
technologies [189]. The study is limited to hydrogen production only. competition and benefit from electric vehicle manufacturing [210]. The
Table 7 shows the summary of the review. study by Schmidt et al. projected the future prices of several energy
storage technologies based on the experience curves [136]. The capital
3.2.4. Thermal storage costs for stationary systems and battery packs are $340 ± 60/kWh and
Integrating TES with the electrical grid could help stabilize the grid. $175 ± 25/kWh, respectively, regardless of storage technology in the
There has been research on the economic feasibility of integrating TES years 2015–2040 [136]. The reduction of LCOE will be one-third by
(sensible heat, latent heat, and thermochemical) to the power network 2030 and one-half by 2050. Among the technologies, Li-ion seems to
11
Table 7
A summary of TEAs of hydrogen and thermal storage systems.
Hydrogen – – 0.48 MT N Y/N The amortized capital cost is $108/kW for medium-term [123]
application.
– 0.22 – IP and mobility N N/N Power-to-gas pathway. [186]
– – 0.30–0.50, LT and ST Y Y/N Power-to-gas pathway. The values represent the future [131]
0.13–0.21 cost in 2030. The LCOE ranges represent long-term and
short-term applications, respectively.
1183–1361 – – LL, DG, and N Y/N The target capital costs for aboveground and [196]
POCWP underground storage are $730 and $616/kW,
respectively.
11,717 – – – N N/N The number represents the capital cost of the fuel cell. [66]
No information was provided for other cost components.
1238–2920 2–16 – – N N/N The values are based on costs found in the literature. [197]
– – 0.12 – N N/N The cost of electrolyzers is about $1313/kW. [170]
– 3–19 – – N N/N The values are based on costs found in literature. [37]
1402–3507 – 0.44 EG Y N/N Power-to-power pathway. The capital cost represents [187]
the cost of an alkaline fuel cell.
2712 – 0.54 EG Y N/N Power-to-power pathway. The capital cost represents [187]
the cost of a PEM fuel cell.
510, 1086 – – NGN and N Y/N Power-to-gas pathway. The capital costs are for alkaline [185]
mobility and PEM electrolysers, respectively.
6423–9231 – 0.45–0.59 Micro-grid N N/N Power-to-power pathway. The capital cost includes the [188]
costs of the electrolyzer and the fuel cell.
11,794 – – Off-grid N Y/N Power-to-power pathway. The electricity source is solar. [198]
The capital cost includes the costs of the electrolyzer and
the fuel cell.
465–859 – – GB N Y/N Power-to-gas pathway. The range in the capital cost is [199]
for different system configurations, such as electrolysis-
based balancing and gas turbine-based balancing.
2050.
– – 0.29 Stand-alone N N/N A fuel cell system integrated with solar PVT. [200]
operation
TES – – 0.08–0.61 PG N Y/Y The TCC is from $100 to $739 million depending on the [83]
configuration of the TES. The highest and lowest cost
options are thermochemical and direct sensible using
one tank, respectively.
– – 0.61–0.65 PG N N/N A 15 MWh TES system for a concentrated solar power [201]
plant. A single-tank TES system was proposed. The TCC
ranges from $3 to $6 million.
– – – PG N N/N The TCCs are $1.91–$2.01 million for two-tank and [202]
$1.12–$1.50 million for thermocline TES systems.
– – 0.05–0.07 PG N Y/N A TES system with concentrated solar power. The TCCs [203]
are from $732 to $795 million.
– <96 – PG N Y/N Thermochemical ESSs for a solar thermal power plant. 8 [204]
thermochemical ESSs were identified as feasible in the
near term.
– – 0.18–0.19 PG N N/N The payback period is 10 years for a new [137]
thermochemical ESS integrated with liquid air ESS.
– – 0.13–0.19 PG N N/N 100 MW solar power plant with thermocline storage. [149]
The LCOE varies with the various solar multiple values
for a 6 h storage capacity.
– – 0.14–0.23 PG N Y/N A thermocline energy storage for a combined cycle solar [206]
power plant. The cost data were obtained from the
SOLGATE project report [205].
571 – 0.11 PG N N/N A 60 MW sensible heat TES with 6 h charging. [195]
392–426 – 0.10 PG N N/N A 60 MW latent heat TES with 6–8 h charging using [195]
different materials.
– 59–117 0.16–0.18 PG N Y/N Latent heat thermal storage. The LCOE varies with [194]
capacity up to 1200 MWh.
– – 0.69–0.80 PG N Y/N The effect of storage capacity factor, solar field size, [193]
solar insolation intensity, and plant capacity on the
LCOE was assessed. The LCOE varies with storage
duration.
– – 0.65–1.4 PG N Y/N The effect of storage capacity factor, solar field size, [193]
solar insolation intensity, and plant capacity on the
LCOE was assessed. The LCOE varies with solar
multiples.
– 34–38 – PG N N/N A 2165 MWh utility-scale packed bed TES system. [207]
– – <0.07 PG N Y/N A latent TES system integrated with a 200 MW [208]
concentrated solar power plant.
– – 0.08–0.14 PG Y N/N Latent heat TES with CSP tower. [192]
12
Y = yes and N = no.

LL = load-leveling, DG = distributed generation, POCWP = purchase of off-peak curtailed wind power, ST = short-term, MT = medium-term, LT = long-term, EG =
electricity generation, NGN = natural gas network, IP = industrial production, GB = grid balancing, PG = power generation, CSP = concentrated solar power, SO =
system operation, NO = network operation.
become the most cost competitive for stationary uses from 2030. The system boundary; the electricity distribution network was left out as it
battery storage systems are predicted to have the lowest LCOE in most was beyond the scope of the study. While a few studies assessed the
application scenarios after 2025. Hayward and Graham projected bat impacts from cradle-to-grave [217–219], some considered cradle-to-
tery storage costs to 2050 for the Australian energy market [209]. IREA gate without including the electricity for charging in the use phase
projected the installed energy cost for different ESSs to 2030 [119]. The [91,129,220] because the GHG emissions in this phase is location-
reduction potential is 50% for a Pb-A to 66% for a VRF battery. The specific and depend on the electricity mix. The end-of-life phase was
installed cost reduction for Li-ion is 54–61% from 2016 to 2030. Among excluded in some of the studies reviewed [220–223]. The lack of in
the mechanical ESSs, FES has a great cost reduction potential of 35% by formation [224] and cradle-to-gate scope definition [225] are the main
2030. It is expected that the lifetime will extend with improvement in reasons for omitting the end-of-life phase. Because transportation makes
materials and efficiency [119]. Ferrero et al. found an LCOE drop of 67% up <1% to life cycle GHG emissions [129], many studies do not include
in 2030 from 2013 for alkaline-based hydrogen storage [187]. Although transportation in their analysis. Longo et al., for instance, while building
these costs are helpful for investment decisions, they are subject to some the life cycle inventory, did not include the energy consumption in
uncertainties due to technology changes, raw material price change, transportation [58]. Table 8 shows the system boundaries used in
breakthroughs, etc. [136,212,213]. different studies.
Of the 33 studies, only 2 conducted a consequential LCA [226,227].
4. Review of the life cycle assessments of energy storage The attributional approach is used where the inputs and outputs are
technologies attributed to the selected functional unit. The consequential LCA, on the
other hand, evaluates how the inputs and outputs flow within a system
A number of studies review the life cycle environmental impacts of to respond to a change in decision [228–230]. Vandepaer et al. assessed
energy storage for transportation applications [63,135,214–216]. To the the cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of grid connected 6 MWh Li-
best of the authors’ knowledge there is not a single paper that review ion and lithium metal polymer (LMP) batteries [226]. The analysis was
ESSs for stationary applications. The recent study by Pellow et al. conducted for the Swiss grid for a 2020 scenario with high renewable
reviewed only a handful of LCA studies related to the Li-ion battery for penetration. There is a lack of information on the operational charac
stationary applications [63]. We conducted a literature search to include teristics of the batteries; however, the authors considered the marginal
different ESSs, such as mechanical, electro-chemical, hydrogen, and electricity mix as well as fractions of virgin and recycled materials for
thermal. We found 33 relevant LCA studies on ESSs for stationary ap battery production in the analysis. They found that GHG emissions could
plications. This section provides a literature review of the LCAs of be reduced significantly using these batteries to integrate renewable
several ESSs. energy, for example, 439 g-CO2eq/kWh for the Li-ion battery. Elzein
et al. performed a cradle-to-grave consequential LCA of the Li-ion bat
tery integrated to the French grid for the year 2017 using ecoinvent
4.1. Goal and scope definition database [227]. The research highlights that the integration of an ESS in
the grid could offer a significant environmental benefit in the operation
The goal defines the main purpose of conducting an LCA and its phase.
intended application, the type of analysis, the method used, and how Another important aspect of the goal and scope phase is the defini
and to whom the results are communicated; the scope includes the tion of the functional unit, used as a reference unit in quantifying energy
product system, the functional unit, the system boundary, allocation use and resulting emissions. The functional unit should be based on the
procedure, system inclusion, and exclusion criteria. Fig. 4 shows a primary service of a system. For an energy storage system, the primary
generalized system boundary of an LCA of ESSs. The system boundary service is delivering the stored electricity. GJ, kWh, and MWh of elec
includes material production and transportation, construction, opera tricity are common functional units used in earlier studies
tion, and decommissioning. System boundaries are set in accordance [129,217,222,231,232]. A common unit allows us to compare different
with the stated goal and scope of the study and the availability of in ESSs. However, some studies did not use a functional unit, which makes
ventory data. For example, Oliveira et al. assessed the environmental it difficult to compare the results for various storage types
performance of ESSs for grid applications in Belgium [217]. Raw ma [175,233,234]. While most of the studies selected the functional unit
terial extraction and processing, assembly of equipment, transportation based on the energy delivery (i.e., 1 MWh), the work by Ryan et al. used
of equipment to Belgium, and its use and disposal were included in the
Material
production Transportation Construction Operation Decommissioning
Energy input
Energy output
System boundary Material input
Emissions
Fig. 4. General LCA system boundary considered for energy storage systems.
13
Table 8
A summary of LCAs of energy storage technologies.
ESS Functional System boundary Data sources and Impact categories Sensitivity/ Emissions Comments Refs.
unit models considered Uncertainty
analysis
PHS 1 kWh Cradle-to-gate, Existing studies NER and GWP Y/Y 7.79 g-CO2eq/kWh The net energy ratio [129]
transportation, and and ecoinvent (NER) and emissions are
decommissioning database calculated for a PHS with
a capacity of 118 MW.
The NER is 0.778. 52% of
the total construction
emissions are from dam
construction.
1 GWh Cradle-to-gate, Economic Input/ ER and GWP N/N 5.6 g-CO2eq/kWh The total energy [91]
operation, and Output (EIO) requirement is 0.066
decommissioning database MJthermal/kWh (without
stored electricity). The
calculations are based on
a 20% capacity factor
and 60-year project
lifetime.
1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 23.5–650 g-CO2eq/ Emissions from [217]
NEEDS Life FFD kWh, 15.70–418 g- electricity production
Cycle Inventory 1,4 DBeq/kWh, were also included in the
Database 0.05–0.85 g- analysis. The emissions
PM10eq/kWh, are from different energy
5.61–189 g-oileq/ sources including wind,
kWh photovoltaic, the
Belgium grid, and the
Union for the
Coordination of the
Transmission of
Electricity (UCTE).
1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Existing studies GWP Y/N 145–179 g-CO2eq/ The range results from [218]
and ecoinvent kWh the variation of efficiency
database and lifetime of a 100 MW
system.
1 MJ*day Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent GWP, HT, PMF, FFD, N/N 5.43–324 g-CO2eq, The range represents the [240]
database OD, POF, TA, etc. 1.64–129 g-oileq, various sources for
3.34–17.6 g-1,4 electricity, i.e., wind,
DCBeq, 0.002–0.44 natural gas, and the local
g-SO2eq grid.
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate, Existing studies NER and GWP Y/Y 269.75–276.04 g- The NER and emissions [231]
transportation, and ecoinvent CO2eq/kWh are calculated for a PHS
maintenance, database with a capacity of 118
operation, and MW. The NER ranges
decommissioning from 0.77 to 0.79.
10 kWh Cradle-to-gate, SimaPro ReCiPe 2016 Y/N 100 The value represents the [248]
transportation, indicators normalized
operation, and environmental impact
decommissioning considering human
health (40%), ecosystems
(40%), and resources
(20%).
CAES 1 kWh Cradle-to-gate, Existing studies NER and GWP Y/Y 264.36 g-CO2eq/ The NER and emissions [129]
transportation, and and ecoinvent kWh are calculated for a
decommissioning database conventional CAES with
a capacity of 81 MW. The
NER is 0.542. The
combustion of natural
gas is included. The
transportation of natural
gas and the compressors
are the main contributors
to construction emissions
at 28% and 26%,
respectively.
4.96 g-CO2eq/kWh The NER and emissions
are calculated for an
adiabatic CAES with a
capacity of 60 MW. The
NER is 0.702.
Compressors and
underground cavern
development are the
main contributors to
construction emissions at
14
analysis
44% and 26%,

respectively.
1 GWh Cradle-to-gate, Economic Input/ ER and GWP N/N 292 g-CO2eq/kWh The energy requirement [91]
operation, and Output (EIO) is 5.27 MJthermal/kWh
decommissioning database plus 0.735 kWhelectricity/
kWh (without stored
electricity). The
a system of 2700 MW
with a 20% capacity
factor and a 40-year
project lifetime.
1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 27.1–740 g-CO2eq/ Emissions from [217]
NEEDS Life FFD kWh, 24.90–475 g- electricity production
Belgium grid, and UCTE.
system.
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies CC, FWET, FWE, HT, N/N 380 g-CO2eq/kWh, An LCA was conducted [221]
operation and ecoinvent MRD, PMF, POF, TA, 0.24 g-1,4 DCBeq/ for a 200 MW
database and AULO kWh, 0.31 g-SO2eq/ conventional CAES for a
kWh 400 MW offshore wind
farm.
19 g-CO2eq/kWh, An LCA was conducted
0.47 g-1,4 DCBeq/ for a 150 MW adiabatic
kWh, 0.13 g-SO2eq/ CAES for a 400 MW
kWh offshore wind farm.
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate, Existing studies NER and GWP Y/Y 97.23–403.1 g- The NER and emissions [231]
transportation, and ecoinvent CO2eq/kWh are calculated for a
maintenance, database conventional CAES with
operation, and a capacity of 81 MW. The
decommissioning NER ranges from 0.53 to
0.54.
296.12–308.85 g- The NER and emissions
CO2eq/kWh are calculated for an
adiabatic CAES with a
capacity of 60 MW. The
NER ranges from 0.70 to
0.72.
(20%).
FES Not Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies CC N/N 838,315 kg-CO2 Total GHG emissions in [234]
specified operation the material production
and operation phases
over the 20-year lifetime.
Not Cradle-to-gate Existing studies CC N/N 6785 kg-CO2 Total GHG emissions in [175]
specified the material production
over the 15-year lifetime.
Pb-A 150 kW h/ Cradle-to-grave Existing studies GWP, POF, N/N 25.22 g-CO2eq/ The emissions calculation [99]
day and acidification, kWh, 0.20 g-SO2/ assumes a 50 kW system
manufacturers eutrophication, and kWh, 0.05 g-CO/ that can generate an
RD kWh, 0.22 g-NOx/ average of 150 kWh
kWh electricity per day for 20
years. The system uses
50% secondary lead for
battery manufacturing.
We converted the CO2,
CH4, and N2O emissions
to CO2 equivalents with
GWPs of 1, 25, and 298
for CO2, CH4, and N2O,
respectively.
15
analysis
21.91 g-CO2eq/ The emissions calculation

kWh, 0.13 g-SO2/ assumes a 50 kW system
kWh, 0.04 g-CO/ that can generate an
kWh, 0.16 g-NOx/ average of 150 kWh
kWh electricity per day for 20
99% secondary lead for
battery manufacturing.
We converted the CO2,
CH4, and N2O emissions
to CO2 equivalents with
respectively.
1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 104–770 g-CO2eq/ Emissions from [217]
NEEDS Life FFD kWh, 189–610 g- electricity production
Belgium grid, and UCTE.
1 MWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies CED and GWP Y/N 215–1157 g-CO2eq/ The energy requirement [222]
operation and ecoinvent kWh is from 7.67 to 18.5 MJ/
database kWh. The energy
requirement and
emissions ranges are
based on base case
scenarios for various
battery uses including
frequency regulation,
energy time-shift, etc.
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies GWP N/N 65–92 g-CO2eq/ The GHG emissions are [254]
recycling and ecoinvent kWh calculated for a Pb-A
database battery integrated with
solar PV based on the
technology in 2013 and
2020+.
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate and Industry and GWP Y/Y 170–740 g-CO2eq/ The emissions are for a [141]
operation ecoinvent kWh valve-regulated lead acid
database battery used for various
services including time-
shift and renewable
integration.
1 MWh Cradle-to-gate Manufacturer CC, OD, TA, FWE, Y/N 102.76 g-CO2eq/ We have calculated the [220]
and SimaPro HT, POF, FFD, etc. kWh, 0.51 g-SO2eq/ emissions for a lead-acid
kWh, 59.82 g-1,4 battery based on the
DBeq/kWh, 0.21 g- functional unit.
PM10eq/kWh
1 MJ Cradle-to-gate Existing studies, CED, GWP, HT, OD, N/N 0.017–0.025 g- Only the environmental [225]
SimaPro, and POF, IR, etc. CO2eq/kWh, impact due to battery
ecoinvent 0.02–0.03 g-1,4 production was
DBeq/kWh considered as the
operation phase varies
considerably by
application.
(20%).
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies GWP Y/Y 190–730 g-CO2eq/ Loss of electricity in [177]
transportation and ecoinvent kWh charging and discharging
is considered. The range
of GHG emissions
represents various
applications and
jurisdictions.
Li-ion 1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 72.30–600 g- Emissions from [217]
NEEDS Life FFD CO2eq/kWh, electricity production
86.40–417 g-1,4 were also included in the
16
analysis
Cycle Inventory DBeq/kWh, analysis. The emissions

Database 0.13–0.81 g- are from different energy
PM10eq/kWh, sources including wind,
30.50–186 g-oileq/ photovoltaic, the
kWh Belgium grid, and UCTE.
requirement and
based on base case
battery uses including
system.
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies GWP N/N 60–72 g-CO2eq/ The GHG emissions are [254]
recycling and ecoinvent kWh calculated for a lithium-
database ferrophosphate (LFP)
battery integrated with
solar PV based on the
technology in 2013 and
2020+.
operation ecoinvent kWh lithium–iron-phosphate
database battery with graphite
anode used for various
services including time-
shift and renewable
integration.
70–490 g-CO2eq/ The emissions are for a
kWh lithium–iron-phosphate
battery with lithium-
titanate anode used for
various services
including time-shift and
renewable integration.
150–600 g-CO2eq/ The emissions are for a
kWh lithium-manganese-
oxide battery with
graphite anode used for
various services
1 MWh Cradle-to-gate Manufacturer CC, OD, TA, FWE, Y/N 27.80 g-CO2eq/ We calculated the [220]
and SimaPro HT, POF, FFD, etc. kWh, 0.18 g-SO2eq/ emissions for a lithium-
kWh, 16.80 g-1,4 manganese battery per
DBeq/kWh kWh based on the
functional unit.
16.10 g-CO2eq/ We calculated the
kWh, 0.12 g-SO2eq/ emissions for a lithium-
kWh, 10.73 g-1,4 iron-phosphate battery
DBeq/kWh per kWh based on the
functional unit.
1 MW-yr. Cradle-to-grave Existing studies, GWP, CED, and N/N 45–180 and 5–15 The values represent the [235]
BatPaC, and acidification GWP annual person average changes in GWP
GREET impact equivalent emissions for the coal and
natural gas cases,
respectively, due to the
addition of 1 MW-yr.
capacity of Li-ion battery.
1 MWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, OD, FWE, POF, Y/N − 439 g-CO2eq/kWh A consequential LCA for [226]
CLCA model Acidification, etc. integrating the surplus
electricity from
renewables in the Swiss
grid for 2030 using a Li-
ion battery with a
capacity of 6 MWh. The
negative sign for the GHG
emissions represents the
reduction in GHG
17
analysis
emissions for using the

battery with renewables
in the grid.
1 MJ Cradle-to-gate Existing studies, CED, GWP, HT, OD, N/N 0.06–0.1 g-CO2eq/ Only the environmental [225]
SimaPro, and POF, IR, etc. kWh, 0.01–0.02 g- impact associated with
ecoinvent 1,4 DBeq/kWh battery production was
considered as the
considerably by
application.
(40%), and resources-
(20%).
1 MWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent CC, HH, EQ, etc. Y/N − 2 kg-CO2eq/year/ A consequential LCA of [227]
kg battery pack the Li-ion battery. The
negative value represents
the amount by which
GHG emissions reduce if
the battery is used.
was considered. The
range of GHG emissions
represents various
applications and
jurisdictions.
Na-S 1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 37.90–640 g- Emissions from [217]
Cycle Inventory 15.30–417 g-1,4 were also included in the
Database DBeq/kWh, analysis. The emissions
0.08–0.85 g- are from different energy
1 MWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing CED and GWP Y/N 201–937 g-CO2eq/ The energy requirement [222]
operation literature and kWh is from 7.3 to 15 MJ/
ecoinvent kWh. The energy
database requirement and
based on base case
scenarios for battery uses
including frequency
regulation, energy, time-
shift, etc.
1 MJ Cradle-to-gate Existing studies, CED, GWP, HT, OD, N/N 0.007 g-CO2eq/ Only the environmental [225]
SimaPro, and POF, IR, etc. kWh, 0.002 g-1,4 impact due to battery
ecoinvent DBeq/kWh production was
considered as the
considerably by
application.
VRFB 1 GWh Cradle-to-gate, Economic Input/ ER and GWP N/N 40.20 g-CO2eq/kWh The energy requirement [91]
operation, and Output (EIO) is 0.56 MJthermal/kWh
decommissioning database (without stored
electricity). The
a system of 15 MW with a
20% capacity factor and
a 20-year project
lifetime.
150 kW h/ Cradle-to-grave Existing studies GWP, POF, N/N 7.26 g-CO2eq/kWh, The emissions calculation [99]
day and acidification, 0.03 g-SO2/kWh, assumes 50 kW system
manufacturers eutrophication, and 0.004 g-CO/kWh, that can generate an
RD 0.04 g-NOx/kWh average of 150 kWh
electricity per day for 20
99% secondary
vanadium for battery
18
analysis
manufacturing. We
converted the CO2, CH4,
and N2O emissions to
CO2 equivalents with
respectively
requirement and
based on base case
services provided by the
batteries including
1 MWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent GWP, HT, N/N 52–279 g-CO2eq/ Emissions from [239]
database acidification, and kWh, 91–150 g-1,4 electricity production
abiotic depletion DCBeq/kWh, were also included in the
0.7–1.01 g-SO2eq/ analysis. The emissions
kWh, 0.013–0.025 are from different energy
g-Sbeq/kWh sources including wind,
photovoltaic, and the
grid. The battery
materials are not
recycled in this case.
21–247 g-CO2eq/ Emissions from
kWh, 44–113 g-1,4 electricity production
DCBeq/kWh, were also included in the
0.13–0.44 g-SO2eq/ analysis. The emissions
kWh, 0.003–0.014 are from different energy
g-Sbeq/kWh sources including wind,
photovoltaic, and the
grid. The battery
materials are recycled in
this case.
operation ecoinvent kWh VRFB battery used for
database various services
1 kWh Cradle-to-gate and Existing studies, CC, HT, Y/Y 136.5 kg-CO2eq/ The environmental [255]
transportation SimaPro, and acidification, POF, kWh, 225 kg-1,4 impact of the vanadium
ecoinvent OD, etc. DBeq/kWh, 1.67 kg- battery is lower than the
SO2eq/kWh Li-ion battery. The
biggest advantage is the
reusability of vanadium
electrolyte.
was considered. The
range of GHG emissions
represents various
applications and
jurisdictions.
Polysulphide 1 GWh Cradle-to-gate, Economic Input/ ER and GWP N/N 32.6 g-CO2eq/kWh The energy requirement [91]
Battery operation, and Output (EIO) is 0.45 MJthermal/kWh
decommissioning database (without stored
electricity). The
a system of 15 MW with a
20% capacity factor and
a 20-year project
lifetime.
Blue battery 10 kWh Cradle-to-grave SimaPro ReCiPe 2016 Y/N 586 The value represents the [248]
system indicators normalized
environmental impacts
considering human
19
analysis

(20%).
NaNiCl 1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 32.50–607 g- Emissions from [217]
operation ecoinvent kWh NaNiCl battery used for
database various services
Ni-Cd 1 MJ Cradle-to-gate Existing studies, CED, GWP, HT, OD, N/N 0.04–0.05 g-CO2eq/ Only the environmental [225]
SimaPro, and POF, IR, etc. kWh, 0.014–0.02 g- impact from battery
ecoinvent 1,4 DBeq/kWh production was
considered as the
considerably by
application.
Hydrogen 1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent and CC, HT, PMF, and N/N 50.60–1620 g- Emissions from [217]
system.
Thermal 1 kWh Cradle-to-gate, Ecoinvent Environmental N/N 0.3–0.7/kWh Sensible heat is stored in [223]
operation, and database impact calculated in high temperature
dismantling points based on Eco- concrete. The range of
indicator 99 numbers is due to the
considering eco changes in temperature
systems quality, HT, gradient of the storage
and resources material in different
scenarios.
5.7–29/kWh The sensible heat is
stored in liquid media,
molten salt. The range in
numbers is a result of the
changes in temperature
gradient of the storage
material in different
scenarios.
4.7–13.8/kWh Latent and sensible heat
are stored using the
phase change material.
The range in numbers is a
result of the changes in
temperature gradient of
the storage material in
different scenarios.
Not Cradle-to-gate, Ecoinvent and GWP N/N 17,100 MTCO2eq The emissions are [233]
specified operation, and Economic Input/ calculated for two-tank
decommissioning Output LCA indirect thermal energy
databases storage system designed
to supply 6 h of storage
for a 50 MW CSP plant.
7890 MTCO2eq The emissions are
calculated for
thermocline indirect
molten salt thermal
energy storage system
designed to supply 6 h of
storage for a 50 MW CSP
plant.
20
analysis
1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Manufacturer, GWP, water use, and Y/N 26 g-CO2eq/kWh, The cumulative energy [219]
contractor, and ER 4.7 L water/kWh demand is 0.43 MJ/kWh.
ecoinvent The environmental
database impacts are calculated for
a 103 MW CSP plant with
thermal storage.
1 GJ Cradle-to-grave Not specified GWP, acidification, N/N 22.68–36 g-CO2/ We converted the [232]
eutrophication, and kWh, 0.17–0.25 36 numbers to get the
POF g-SO2/kWh, emissions per kWh from
0.0075–0.01 g- GJ.
phosphate/kWh
1 kWh Cradle-to-grave Existing studies NER, GWP Y/Y 13–47 g-CO2eq/ Two-tank indirect [238]
and GREET kWh sensible heat storage.
database 7–28 g-CO2eq/kWh Two-tank direct sensible
heat storage.
5–21 g-CO2eq/kWh One-tank direct sensible
heat storage.
9–34 g-CO2eq/kWh Latent heat storage.
9–27 g-CO2eq/kWh Thermochemical storage.
Net energy ratio (NER) = Energy output/(construction energy + maintainance energy + operational energy).
1,4 DBeq is 1,4 dichlorobenzene equivalents, PM10eq is particulate matter (<10 μm) emission equivalents.
Y = yes and N = no.
GWP = global warming potential, ER = energy requirements, CED = cumulative energy demand, CC = climate change, HT = human toxicity, PMF = particulate matter
formation, FFD = fossil fuel depletion, FWET = freshwater ecotoxicity, FWE = freshwater eutrophication, MRD = mineral resource depletion, POF = photochemical
oxidant formation, TA = terrestrial acidification, AULO = agricultural and urban land occupation, RD = resources depletion, OD = ozone depletion.
the power capacity (i.e., 1 MW of reserve capacity for 1 year), as bids are electrolyzers for hydrogen storage systems [217]. It is important to
placed based on the power over a certain period [235]. As the frequency mention that the quality of data used in the inventories should be
level changes with the change in output power of generators, presenting checked as it dictates the environmental performances. The technology
GHG emissions per MW basis could be appropriate in this scenario. (energy and material requirements) and energy sources have a region
The modelling approach is also one of the critical aspects in current alized context. For example, a battery manufactured in China will have
LCA literature for ESSs. In most process-based LCA, commercial software different impacts than one produced in Canada, depending on the
and database are used. For example, Oliveira et al. [217] and Wang et al. manufacturing technology and electricity mix. The inventories should
[220] used SimaPro, Peters et al. [236] used OpenLCA, and Sternberg be adjusted accordingly to reflect such variabilities.
and Bardow [237] used GaBi for modeling purposes. Some studies During the operation phase, energy is stored and discharged based on
developed bottom-up process models using scientific principles. For demand. The overall efficiency, depth of discharge and self-discharge
example, Kapila et al. [231] and Thaker et al. [238] developed bottom- rate, and lifetime are considered to calculate the lifetime electricity
up LCA models to quantify the GHG and energy performances of me output from an energy storage system [244]. Increasing ESS efficiency or
chanical and thermal storage systems, respectively. Such models main service life improves its environmental performance [244]. When the
tain the process specificity of a product system and offer flexibility to electricity source for the ESS is taken into account, the results will differ
modify the system based on any user’s needs. However, the main chal based on the source of electricity considered because GHG emissions
lenge with these models is in dealing with complex system and multiple from solar, wind, and fossil fuel power plants are different [217]. Hir
environmental impacts. emath et al. [222] and Kapila et al. [129] considered grid electricity for
charging. Oliveira et al.’s inventory includes electricity from grid, solar,
4.2. Inventory analysis and wind [63]. Round-trip efficiency and upstream emissions for elec
tricity generation together dominate the operation phase [63]. The en
Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis involves collecting data and ergy and material requirements for system maintenance are considered
establishing material and energy balances for each unit process if data is available [91,129].
considered in the system boundary. The amount of material and energy The biggest challenge in the end-of-life phase is the lack of data, as
required depends on the system size. Once the material requirement is mentioned in a number of studies [58,177,239]. Longo et al. used
quantified, the energy requirement is estimated based on the material’s average data for the European recycling process [58]; Weber et al.
specific energy demand. adapted existing ecoinvent data sets [239]. Among the electro-chemical
For inventory analysis, some studies rely on databases, such as batteries, Pb-A is highly recyclable. Hiremath et al. modeled a scenario
ecoinvent [218,239,240], GREET [231,238], NEEDS [217], and EIO for 70% recycled lead [222] and Van den Bossche [60] considered
[91,233], and others use literature inventories [222] and data provided 98.3% recyclability, assuming secondary lead quality is as good as vir
by manufacturers [99,220]. Engineering equations are used to quantify gin. Although some studies include the recycling of Li-ion batteries, it is
material requirements for some components. For example, the reservoir difficult to get reliable process parameters and robust results. Swain
volumes for PHS can be calculated from the volume of water required to estimated that <3% of the world’s Li-ion batteries are recycled [245].
operate a complete cycle [129]. For batteries, the individual material According to Weber et al., only a little electricity is required to balance
requirement is quantified from the percentage contribution of each the vanadium electrolyte when used again [239]. The authors assumed a
material and the total weight of the battery [58,99,217]. The material 95% recovery of vanadium electrolyte. With increasing use of the
inventories from Majeau-Bettez et al. [241], Sullivan and Gaines [59], electro-chemical batteries, it is expected that recycling processes will be
Zackrisson et al. [242], Troy et al. [243], and Rydh and Sandén [99] are established, and recycling rates may improve in the future.
widely used for different electro-chemical batteries. The NEEDS LCI
database is one of the inventories for the fuel cell stack sand
21
4.3. Impact assessment authors compared mechanical and electro-chemical storage systems
with hydrogen storage and found hydrogen storage to have the worst
The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) translates the inventory re environmental performance. This is due to poor efficiency in hydrogen
sults to defined impact categories (e.g., acidification, cumulative energy production and fuel cell conversion. However, GHG emissions from
demand [CED], eutrophication, fossil fuel depletion, human toxicity, infrastructure requirement for fuel cell technology are marginal, <10 g-
global warming potential [GWP], etc.). CED and GWP are the most CO2eq/kWh. The overall environmental footprint of fuel cells can be
common impact categories in ESS studies [135] because of their wide reduced considerably if electricity is stored from a low GHG-intensive
acceptance in decision making. Human toxicity, particulate matter for source, and hydrogen storage could potentially compete with PHS and
mation, and fossil resource depletion are also used. In addition to CAES [218].
emissions, net energy ratio (NER) is a performance indicator used in LCA The environmental performance of thermal ESSs has been assessed in
studies on ESSs. NER is defined as a ratio of energy output to the total a number of studies [219,223,232,233,238]. Among the manufacturing,
energy input of the product system throughout its lifetime [246]. construction, operation, dismantling, and disposal phases, the
Oró et al.’s [223] LCA of thermal energy storage is based on the Eco- manufacturing phase makes up 46% of the life cycle GHG emissions. The
indicator 99 (EI99) method [247]. The reasons for selecting the EI99 are solar collector assembly and heat transfer fluid are the largest sources of
its wide acceptance and the availability of extensive data, as mentioned emissions in this phase [219]. According to Heath et al., life cycle GHG
by Oró et al. Three different damage categories are grouped into a single emissions can be reduced if the salt inventory for the thermocline stor
indicator. For example, the overall score considering the ecosystem age system is reduced [233]. Oró et al. compared sensible heat storage in
quality, human health, and resources is 5.67/kWh for molten salt ther high temperature concrete and molten salts media with latent heat
mal storage under normal conditions [223]. Stougie et al. used ReCiPe storage using phase change materials [223]. Although the storage ca
2016 to assess the environmental sustainability of different ESSs [248]. pacity of the solid media is lower than in the salt system, its environ
A total normalized score is given to each energy storage type. The total mental impacts are lower than in systems using molten salt and phase
scores for Li-ion and PHS are 2346 and 100, respectively. The lower the change materials because of the low material requirement in solid media
ESS score, the higher its environmental performance is. Oliveira et al. [223]. Because the molten salt system requires special equipment to
[217] and Hiremath et al. [222] used ReCiPe 2008 [249] for impact withstand high temperatures, it has a higher footprint than the phase
assessment. The difference between ReCiPe 2008 and ReCiPe 2016 is change material system.
that weighting and normalization factors to calculate the endpoint in In most ESSs, the operation phase is one of the largest contributors to
dicator are unavailable in ReCiPe 2016 [248]. the life cycle emissions and is dictated by the emission intensity of the
The environmental impacts of different ESSs found in various studies electricity used for charging [222]. Transition from fossil fuel-based
are listed in Table 8. Each life cycle stage makes different contributions electricity to renewables reduces the overall GHG emissions dramati
to the environmental impacts depending on the system boundary and cally [217,222]. The life cycle GHG emissions of utility-scale solar and
assumptions. Kapila et al. found that in PHS and CAES systems, the wind power plants are 26–183 g-CO2eq/kWh [250] and 3–45 g-CO2eq/
construction phase is the most material and energy intensive of the life kWh [251], respectively, while coal and natural gas plants emit
cycle phases [129]. The authors amortized the energy consumption and 66–1300 g-CO2eq/kWh and 380–1000 g-CO2eq/kWh, respectively
resulting emissions from the life cycle stages over the lifetime of the [252].
storage system and estimated that about 95% of the emissions is resulted Life cycle environmental impacts vary widely with the application
from the material and energy use in the construction phase [129]. With scenario because of the discharge duration and number of cycles. PHS,
respect to life cycle emissions, conventional CAES is the most GHG CAES, and solar thermal are used for energy applications where
intensive among mechanical storage technologies because it requires discharge duration is high. For example, Kapila et al. [231] and Thaker
additional fuel, e.g., natural gas, during operation. Denholm and Kul et al. [238] designed mechanical and thermal energy storages for 12 h
cinski report that dam construction makes up 28% of the life cycle en and 8 h, respectively, while Heath et al. [233] assumed 6 h discharge
ergy use of PHS when the electricity generation source is not considered duration for thermal storage. Electro-chemical storage systems can be
[91]. Around 49% of the life cycle energy use is from natural gas con used for different power and energy applications. A few studies assessed
sumption and the rest is from electricity use in different equipment. the environmental sustainability of ESSs for different applications.
Storing electricity from renewable rather than non-renewable sources Discharge duration and number of cycles appear to be among the
can reduce overall emissions significantly, as mentioned by Oliveira important characteristics of the applications. Hiremath et al. considered
et al. [217]. seven application scenarios, each having specific power and energy
The construction phase is one of the biggest sources of energy con capacities [222]. Under-use of the batteries is the main reason for dif
sumption for electro-chemical batteries. The disposal of the lead smelter ferences in the environmental footprints of the system. Baumann et al.
is the main source of environmental impacts for Pb-A batteries. Oliviera considered four stationary cases [141]. Primary regulation and electric
et al. found that for Li-ion batteries, the mining activities of copper and time-shift have higher carbon footprints because grid mix electricity is
lithium have the largest impact [217], and Rydh found that the largest used, rather than renewable support and PV self-consumption, which
impact for the VRFB is in the production of polypropylene tanks, flow uses renewables. The key parameter in all cases is the duration of
frames, and steel stacks [99]. According to Denholm and Kulcinski, discharge. The discharge durations for electric time-shift, PV self-
power stack materials and manufacturing make up 42–44% of the life consumption, primary regulation, and renewable support are 4, 3.2, 1,
cycle GHG emissions [91]. The BOP contributes 19–24% of the emis and 10 h, respectively. The corresponding number of cycles are 2, 1, 34,
sions. The anode and cathode materials contribute considerably to the and 1.12, respectively. The number of cycles is crucial for battery life
manufacturing energy use and GHG emissions. In Li-ion batteries, for because higher frequency in charge/discharge cycles leads to high
example, anode and cathode materials make up 46% of the replacement rates. The performance of the Li-ion is better than the Pb-A
manufacturing emissions [218]. The use of recycled materials can because of Li-ion’s longer lifetime [141].
significantly reduce energy consumption in material production. Rydh The impact assessment results in most of the studies were limited to
found that the use of 99% secondary lead, for instance, can reduce CO2 point estimates and do not provide the most likely ranges. Life cycle
emissions by 13% compared to the use of 50% secondary lead in Pb-A impact assessment results are subject to a certain degree of uncertainty.
batteries [99]. This could be due to uncertainties in input and output parameters,
Oliveira et al. conducted an LCA of proton exchange membrane fuel modeling choice, temporal and spatial variabilities, and so on. There
cell technology, which is scalable in a module of 500 kW [217]. This fore, in order to have a better understating and interpretation of LCA
technology uses hydrogen from electrolyzers at high pressure. The results, it is important to perform sensitivity and uncertainty analyses.
22
However, few published LCA studies on ESSs do this. Some incorporate 5.3. LCA system boundary and data sources
uncertainty analysis. Kapila et al. [231], for example, used a regression,
uncertainty, and sensitivity tool (RUST) [253] to identify the influential Like economic assessment, environmental performance is an
variables and provide a range of results. Thaker et al. [238] and Bau important aspect in the selection of energy storage technologies. How
mann et al. [141] also generated a wide range of GHG emissions results ever, there is little information on environmental performance, espe
by using a range of input parameters in order to have a better compar cially for electro-chemical batteries, liquid air ESSs, and flywheels. Most
ative assessment of the alternative energy storage technologies. of the earlier studies considered the material manufacturing, trans
A direct comparison of the environmental impacts of different ESSs is portation, and operation of the storage section only and did not account
difficult because of the difference in system boundaries and assumptions for PCS and BOP. The PCS and BOP are also important components of
adopted in various studies. C-CAES has higher emissions than PHS and the storage system. The environmental impacts of these components
A-CAES because of the use of natural gas. The problems of electro- should be included in the analysis.
chemical ESSs have been with replacing batteries due to their short An important limitation found in the review of LCAs of ESSs is in
lifetime and with the disposal of chemicals. The ranking of various consistencies in the system boundary, which could generate misleading
electro-chemical ESSs differs among studies because of the variations in results. Including all the life cycle stages from cradle-to-grave is required
key technical parameters, i.e., round-trip efficiency, depth of discharge, to quantify NERs and environmental footprints of ESSs. To understand
and cycle life. The source of electricity used for charging can also in the end-of-life impact, recycling should be included. Recycling of ma
fluence the results. For thermal ESSs, life cycle GHG emissions depend terials can reduce the overall burden by displacing the virgin materials.
largely on the configuration. For example, the total emissions of a latent This topic is not sufficiently addressed in the earlier studies. There may
heat thermal storage system are higher than from sensible heat. This is be an opportunity to increase the burden if the recycling process in more
mainly due to the use of phase change material, which requires addi energy intensive compared to the virgin material production.
tional energy. However, in order to have a reasonable comparison of the Most studies use generic databases for inventory analysis. Product-
environmental performance of different ESSs and avoid any misleading specific data inventory should be built to accurately conduct LCA.
conclusions, it is important to establish a consistent system boundary Specific energy consumption and emissions differ with the technology
and set of assumptions. used and the jurisdiction. Future LCA studies should also use appropriate
values for specific energy consumption and emissions factors.
5. Identified gaps and recommendations
5.4. Need for uncertainty analysis
The following section discusses the gaps identified from the review of
techno-economic and life cycle assessments of ESSs. LCA and TEA are subject to uncertainties that arise from the pa
rameters used, modeling choice, and scenario development. It is
important to incorporate those uncertainties into the LCA and TEA if
5.1. Economy of scale they are used as decision support tools. However, uncertainty analysis
has been overlooked in most LCA and TEA studies on ESSs. Comparative
Although there are few studies developed economies of scale and assessment of different technologies using only point estimating could
scale factors for pumped hydro, compressed air, and thermal ESSs, be misleading. Only a handful of studies provide possible cost ranges and
electro-chemical batteries and flywheel for commercial-scale operations environmental footprints considering the variabilities in input parame
require extensive study to understand their economic feasibility. The ters, modeling choice, and other sources of uncertainty in their analyses.
relation between the capacity and the investment cost needs be inves Techno-economic and life cycle assessment results with uncertainty
tigated by developing scale factors and economies of scales for different ranges have more credibility and reliability. Hence, sensitivity and un
technologies, such as VRFB, Na-S, Ni-Cd, hydrogen storage, FES, and certainty analysis practices should be encouraged in future research in
other emerging storage technologies for utility applications. the ESS domain.
In addition, the relation between the depth of discharge and cycle life
of ESSs should be included in techno-economic assessment. Increasing 5.5. LCA of emerging energy storage technologies
the depth of discharge can reduce the cycle life of electro-chemical
batteries considerably. Including this aspect in the analysis could Most of the reviewed LCA studies focus on PHS and CAES from
change our understanding of cost performance. mechanical energy storage, Li-ion and Pb-A batteries from electro-
chemical batteries, and thermal ESSs with various configurations.
Those technologies are already widely implemented or at high maturity
5.2. Consistency in cost estimation level. The availability of technical and environmental data are the main
motivations behind these studies. LCA studies on emerging storage
Our review of the techno-economic assessments of ESSs found that technologies, such as lithium-sulfur and solid-state batteries, liquid air
the calculations of the TCC and LCOE are inconsistent. For example, energy storage, etc., are limited. However, understanding the environ
many studies underestimate the LCOE by not considering the BOP and mental performance of technologies in their early stages of development
fixed O&M costs of the system. All the cost components in the analysis offers opportunities to make design adjustments to minimize environ
need to be included to generate results robust enough to compare mental burdens.
various storage technologies. In summary, developing an integrated bottom-up techno-economic
The cost of charging is reflected in the levelized cost of electricity. and life cycle assessment model incorporating all the technical param
The LCOE will change if the source of electricity changes, because eters and components to estimate the levelized cost of electricity and
electricity production costs differs by source. Therefore, the levelized environmental footprints associated with storage systems is crucial to fill
cost of storage (excluding the cost of charging) could be a better per knowledge gaps in the research. Incorporating uncertainty analysis in
formance indicator than the levelized cost of electricity for comparing the model would help us understand the influence of each parameter on
the ESSs. Although a handful of studies estimated the LCOS for pumped the overall results.
hydro, compressed air storage, and thermal storage, very few estimated
the LCOS for electro-chemical, flywheel, and hydrogen storage systems. 6. Conclusion
Future studies should estimate the LCOS for a better economic
comparison. Energy storage systems (ESSs) help mitigate the uncertainty
23
associated with the electrical load in the power network. To incorporate References
ESSs in the grid, it is essential to understand their technical parameters
as well as their economic and environmental performances. This paper [1] Baky MAH, Rahman MM, Islam AS. Development of renewable energy sector in
Bangladesh: current status and future potentials. Renewable Sustainable Energy
provided a review of the current status of energy storage technologies Rev 2017;73:1184–97.
along with their technical characteristics and operating principles. [2] Perera F. Pollution from fossil-fuel combustion is the leading environmental
Further, decision-making indicators, i.e., total capital costs, levelized threat to global pediatric health and equity: solutions exist. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2017;15:16.
cost of electricity, and environmental footprints, were reviewed. The [3] Patel M, Zhang X, Kumar A. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on
pumped hydro storage system dominates the market and will continue lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review.
to dominate it in the near future. The shares of electro-chemical storage Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2016;53:1486–99.
[4] Patel M, Kumar A. Production of renewable diesel through the hydroprocessing of
systems are increasing. Lithium-ion battery use is growing the fastest, lignocellulosic biomass-derived bio-oil: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy
followed by sodium-based batteries. Rev 2016;58:1293–307.
Following the review, we conclude that the most influential technical [5] Rahman MM, Canter C, Kumar A. Well-to-wheel life cycle assessment of
transportation fuels derived from different North American conventional crudes.
parameters affecting cost and environmental performances are lifetime,
Appl Energy 2015;156:159–73.
round-trip efficiency, and cycle length. Among the bulk ESSs, PHS out [6] Rahman MM, Canter C, Kumar A. Greenhouse gas emissions from recovery of
performs other technologies because of its very long lifetime, usually 60 various North American conventional crudes. Energy 2014;74:607–17.
years. However, due to their operational flexibility, electro-chemical [7] Rogelj J, Den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, et al. Paris
Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 C.
batteries are growing faster. The economic and environmental perfor Nature 2016;534:631.
mances of electro-chemical ESSs depend on the stationary applications [8] Rahman MM, Khan M-M-U-H, Ullah MA, Zhang X, Kumar A. A hybrid renewable
they provide. It is expected that the Li-ion battery will dominate the energy system for a North American off-grid community. Energy 2016;97:
151–60.
electricity market for all stationary applications because its costs will [9] Aneke M, Wang M. Energy storage technologies and real life applications–a state
decrease sharply. While improving efficiency and cycle life can reduce of the art review. Appl Energy 2016;179:350–77.
environmental footprints, storing electricity from green sources can [10] Serra R, Niknia I, Paré D, Titus B, Gagnon B, Laganière J. From conventional to
renewable natural gas: can we expect GHG savings in the near term? Biomass
drastically reduce GHG emissions. Bioenergy 2019;131:105396.
ESSs are used for various utility-scale stationary applications and the [11] Gulagi A, Ram M, Solomon AA, Khan M, Breyer C. Current energy policies and
choice depends on technical characteristics, cost, and environmental possible transition scenarios adopting renewable energy: a case study for
Bangladesh. Renewable Energy 2020;155:899–920.
emissions. Considering these criteria, pumped hydro, compressed air, [12] Renewables. Global status report. REN21 Renewable Energy Policy Network/
hydrogen, and thermal energy storages appear to be suitable for the Worldwatch Institute. Available: <http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/
energy applications, such as bulk energy storage and T&D investment 2016/05/GSR_2016_Full_Report_lowres.pdf>; 2016 [Accessed May 15 2020].
[13] Luo X, Wang J, Dooner M, Clarke J. Overview of current development in
deferral. Although flywheels are not suitable for energy applications
electrical energy storage technologies and the application potential in power
because of their high energy loss, they can be used for frequency regu system operation. Appl Energy 2015;137:511–36.
lation. The advantages of electro-chemical ESSs are quick response time [14] Ourahou M, Ayrir W, El Hassouni B, Haddi A. Review on smart grid control and
and modularity, which make them favorable for most energy and power reliability in presence of renewable energies: challenges and prospects. Math
Comput Simul 2020;167:19–31.
applications, such as bulk energy storage, T&D investment deferral, [15] Bajaj M, Singh AK. Grid integrated renewable DG systems: a review of power
frequency regulation, and support of voltage regulation. They are also quality challenges and state-of-the-art mitigation techniques. Int J Energy Res
suitable for power quality and power reliability applications. 2020;44:26–69.
[16] Sinsel SR, Riemke RL, Hoffmann VH. Challenges and solution technologies for the
This study provides a database for future research on techno- integration of variable renewable energy sources—a review. Renewable Energy
economic and life cycle assessments of ESSs. However, to handle the 2020;145:2271–85.
range in datasets for each ESS, an uncertainty analysis needs to be car [17] Basit MA, Dilshad S, Badar R, Sami ur Rehman SM. Limitations, challenges, and
solution approaches in grid-connected renewable energy systems. Int J Energy
ried out to better understand the results. Res 2020;44:4132–62.
[18] Colmenar-Santos A, Linares-Mena A-R, Molina-Ibáñez E-L, Rosales-Asensio E,
Declaration of Competing Interest Borge-Diez D. Technical challenges for the optimum penetration of grid-
connected photovoltaic systems: Spain as a case study. Renewable Energy 2020;
145:2296–305.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [19] Abbey C, Joos G. Supercapacitor energy storage for wind energy applications.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2007;43:769–76.
[20] Lu M-S, Chang C-L, Lee W-J, Wang L. Combining the wind power generation
the work reported in this paper.
system with energy storage equipment. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2009;45:2109–15.
[21] Barton JP, Infield DG. Energy storage and its use with intermittent renewable
Acknowledgements energy. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2004;19:441–8.
[22] Yekini Suberu M, Wazir Mustafa M, Bashir N. Energy storage systems for
renewable energy power sector integration and mitigation of intermittency.
The authors thank the NSERC Energy Storage Technology (NEST) Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;35:499–514.
Network (RYERU NSERC 468468 Kumar) and the University of Alberta [23] Headley AJ, Copp DA. Energy storage sizing for grid compatibility of intermittent
(UOFAB VPRGRF NEST KUMAR) for the financial support provided to renewable resources: a California case study. Energy 2020;198:117310.
[24] Chen H, Cong TN, Yang W, Tan C, Li Y, Ding Y. Progress in electrical energy
carry out this research. We are also grateful to the NSERC/Cenovus/ storage system: a critical review. Prog Nat Sci 2009;19:291–312.
Alberta Innovates Associate Industrial Research Chair in Energy and [25] Guney MS, Tepe Y. Classification and assessment of energy storage systems.
Environmental Systems Engineering and the Cenovus Energy Endowed Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2017;75:1187–97.
[26] Baker J, Collinson A. Electrical energy storage at the turn of the millennium.
Chair in Environmental Engineering for providing financial support for Power Eng J 1999;13:107–12.
this project. The authors thank Astrid Blodgett for editing this paper. [27] Walawalkar R, Apt J, Mancini R. Economics of electric energy storage for energy
arbitrage and regulation in New York. Energy Policy 2007;35:2558–68.
[28] Braeuer F, Rominger J, McKenna R, Fichtner W. Battery storage systems: an
Appendix A. Supplementary data economic model-based analysis of parallel revenue streams and general
implications for industry. Appl Energy 2019;239:1424–40.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. [29] Killer M, Farrokhseresht M, Paterakis NG. Implementation of large-scale Li-ion
battery energy storage systems within the EMEA region. Appl Energy 2020;260:
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113295.
114166.
[30] Weinstock IB. Recent advances in the US Department of Energy’s energy storage
technology research and development programs for hybrid electric and electric
vehicles. J Power Sources 2002;110:471–4.
[31] Koot M, Kessels JT, De Jager B, Heemels W, Van den Bosch P, Steinbuch M.
Energy management strategies for vehicular electric power systems. IEEE Trans
Veh Technol 2005;54:771–82.
24
[32] Hemmati R, Saboori H. Emergence of hybrid energy storage systems in renewable [64] Molina MG. Dynamic modelling and control design of advanced energy storage
energy and transport applications – a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev for power system applications. In: Brito Alisson V, editor. Dynamic Modelling.
2016;65:11–23. IntechOpen; 2010. DOI: 10.5772/7092 [Accessed April 02 2019].
[33] Mehrjerdi H. Dynamic and multi-stage capacity expansion planning in microgrid [65] Zhao H, Wu Q, Hu S, Xu H, Rasmussen CN. Review of energy storage system for
integrated with electric vehicle charging station. J Storage Mater 2020;29: wind power integration support. Appl Energy 2015;137:545–53.
101351. [66] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of utility energy storage options for
[34] Lazzeroni P, Olivero S, Repetto M, Stirano F, Vallet M. Optimal battery increased renewable energy penetration. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
management for vehicle-to-home and vehicle-to-grid operations in a residential 2012;16:4141–7.
case study. Energy 2019;175:704–21. [67] Li G, Hwang Y, Radermacher R, Chun H-H. Review of cold storage materials for
[35] Hadjipaschalis I, Poullikkas A, Efthimiou V. Overview of current and future subzero applications. Energy 2013;51:1–17.
energy storage technologies for electric power applications. Renewable [68] DOE Global Energy Storage Database. Available: <http://www.energystoragee
Sustainable Energy Rev 2009;13:1513–22. xchange.org/projects/data_visualization> [Accessed July 03 2018].
[36] Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of large-scale battery systems for [69] Wang J, Lu K, Ma L, Wang J, Dooner M, Miao S, et al. Overview of compressed air
electricity storage. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2013;27:778–88. energy storage and technology development. Energies 2017;10:991.
[37] Díaz-González F, Sumper A, Gomis-Bellmunt O, Villafáfila-Robles R. A review of [70] Akhil AA, Huff G, Currier AB, Kaun BC, Rastler DM, Chen SB, et al. DOE/EPRI
energy storage technologies for wind power applications. Renewable Sustainable electricity storage handbook in collaboration with NRECA. Available: <https
Energy Rev 2012;16:2154–71. ://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/2015/151002.pdf>
[38] Ibrahim H, Ilinca A, Perron J. Energy storage systems—characteristics and [Accessed May 16 2020].
comparisons. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2008;12:1221–50. [71] Sebastián R, Peña-Alzola R, Quesada J, Colmenar A. Sizing and simulation of a
[39] May GJ, Davidson A, Monahov B. Lead batteries for utility energy storage: a low cost flywheel based energy storage system for wind diesel hybrid systems. In:
review. J Storage Mater 2018;15:145–57. Energy Conference and Exhibition (ENERGYCON), 2012. IEEE International;
[40] Amirante R, Cassone E, Distaso E, Tamburrano P. Overview on recent 2012. p. 495–500.
developments in energy storage: mechanical, electrochemical and hydrogen [72] Sebastián R, Alzola RP. Flywheel energy storage systems: review and simulation
technologies. Energy Convers Manage 2017;132:372–87. for an isolated wind power system. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2012;16:
[41] Yang Y, Bremner S, Menictas C, Kay M. Battery energy storage system size 6803–13.
determination in renewable energy systems: a review. Renewable Sustainable [73] Karpinski A, Makovetski B, Russell S, Serenyi J, Williams D. Silver–zinc: status of
Energy Rev 2018;91:109–25. technology and applications. J Power Sources 1999;80:53–60.
[42] Palizban O, Kauhaniemi K. Energy storage systems in modern grids—matrix of [74] Wall S, McShane D. A strategy for low-cost utility connection of battery energy
technologies and applications. J Storage Mater 2016;6:248–59. storage systems. J Power Sources 1997;67:193–200.
[43] Bucciarelli M, Giannitrapani A, Paoletti S, Vicino A, Zarrilli D. Sizing of energy [75] Ferreira HL, Garde R, Fulli G, Kling W, Lopes JP. Characterisation of electrical
storage systems considering uncertainty on demand and generation. IFAC- energy storage technologies. Energy 2013;53:288–98.
PapersOnLine 2017;50:8861–6. [76] Daryl RB, Chvala D. Flywheel energy storage: an alternative to batteries for
[44] Fossati JP, Galarza A, Martín-Villate A, Fontán L. A method for optimal sizing uninterruptible power supply systems. Available: <https://www.tandfonline.
energy storage systems for microgrids. Renewable Energy 2015;77:539–49. com/doi/abs/10.1080/01998590509509440> [Accessed May 16 2020].
[45] Akinyele DO, Rayudu RK. Review of energy storage technologies for sustainable [77] Schoenung SM, Eyer J. Benefit/cost framework for evaluating modular energy
power networks. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2014;8:74–91. storage: A study for the DOE energy storage systems program. Report prepared
[46] Soloveichik GL. Battery technologies for large-scale stationary energy storage. for Sandia National Laboratories. Available: <https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/tech
Ann Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2011;2:503–27. lib-noauth/access-control.cgi/2008/080978.pdf> [Accessed April 2 2019].
[47] Kousksou T, Bruel P, Jamil A, El Rhafiki T, Zeraouli Y. Energy storage: [78] Leadbetter J, Swan LG. Selection of battery technology to support grid-integrated
applications and challenges. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2014;120:59–80. renewable electricity. J Power Sources 2012;216:376–86.
[48] Beaudin M, Zareipour H, Schellenberglabe A, Rosehart W. Energy storage for [79] Tamyurek B, Nichols DK, Demirci O. The NAS battery: a multifunction energy
mitigating the variability of renewable electricity sources: an updated review. storage system. In: Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2003. IEEE;
Energy Sustainable Dev 2010;14:302–14. 2003. p. 1991–6.
[49] Mahlia TMI, Saktisahdan TJ, Jannifar A, Hasan MH, Matseelar HSC. A review of [80] Takashima K, Ishimaru F, Kunimoto A, Kagawa H, Matsui K, Nomura E, et al.
available methods and development on energy storage; technology update. A Plan for a 1MW/8MWH sodium-sulfur battery energy storage plant. In: Energy
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;33:532–45. Conversion Engineering Conference, 1990 IECEC-90 Proceedings of the 25th
[50] Yan T, Wang R, Li T, Wang L, Fred IT. A review of promising candidate reactions Intersociety; 1990. p. 367–71.
for chemical heat storage. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;43:13–31. [81] Stackpool F, Auxer W, McNamee M, Mangan M. Sodium sulphur battery
[51] Zidar M, Georgilakis PS, Hatziargyriou ND, Capuder T, Škrlec D. Review of development. In: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1989 IECEC-89,
energy storage allocation in power distribution networks: applications, methods Proceedings of the 24th Intersociety; 1989. p. 2765–8.
and future research. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2016;10:645–52. [82] Emirates Energy Award 2015 Winners. Supreme Council of Energy. Available:
[52] Figgener J, Stenzel P, Kairies K-P, Linßen J, Haberschusz D, Wessels O, et al. The <http://www.emiratesenergyaward.com/images/EEA_Mag_PRINT_FIN_2.pdf>
development of stationary battery storage systems in Germany – a market review. [Accessed August 29 2018].
J Storage Mater 2020;29:101153. [83] Thaker S, Oni AO, Kumar A. Techno-economic evaluation of solar-based thermal
[53] Battke B, Schmidt TS, Grosspietsch D, Hoffmann VH. A review and probabilistic energy storage systems. Energy Convers Manage 2017;153:423–34.
model of lifecycle costs of stationary batteries in multiple applications. [84] Comodi G, Carducci F, Sze JY, Balamurugan N, Romagnoli A. Storing energy for
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2013;25:240–50. cooling demand management in tropical climates: a techno-economic comparison
[54] Zakeri B, Syri S. Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost between different energy storage technologies. Energy 2017;121:676–94.
analysis. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;42:569–96. [85] Socaciu LG. Thermal energy storage: an overview. ACTA technica napocensis-
[55] Koohi-Fayegh S, Rosen MA. A review of energy storage types, applications and series: Applied mathematics, mechanics, and engineering. 2012.
recent developments. J Storage Mater 2020;27:101047. [86] Zalba B, Marın JM, Cabeza LF, Mehling H. Review on thermal energy storage with
[56] ISO 14040. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and phase change: materials, heat transfer analysis and applications. Appl Therm Eng
framework. The Organization for Standardization. Available: <https://www.iso. 2003;23:251–83.
org/standard/37456.html>; 2006. [87] Geth F, Brijs T, Kathan J, Driesen J, Belmans R. An overview of large-scale
[57] ISO 14044. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements stationary electricity storage plants in Europe: current status and new
and guidelines. The Organization for Standardization. Available: <https://www. developments. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;52:1212–27.
iso.org/standard/38498.html>; 2006. [88] Castillo A, Gayme DF. Grid-scale energy storage applications in renewable energy
[58] Longo S, Antonucci V, Cellura M, Ferraro M. Life cycle assessment of storage integration: a survey. Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:885–94.
systems: the case study of a sodium/nickel chloride battery. J Cleaner Prod 2014; [89] Faias S, Santos P, Sousa J, Castro R. An overview on short and long-term response
85:337–46. energy storage devices for power systems applications. Available from: <http
[59] Sullivan JL, Gaines L. Status of life cycle inventories for batteries. Energy Convers ://www.icrepq.com/icrepq-08/327-faias.pdf> [Accessed August 29 2018].
Manage 2012;58:134–48. [90] Kaldellis J, Zafirakis D. Optimum energy storage techniques for the improvement
[60] Van den Bossche P, Vergels F, Van Mierlo J, Matheys J, Van Autenboer W. of renewable energy sources-based electricity generation economic efficiency.
SUBAT: an assessment of sustainable battery technology. J Power Sources 2006; Energy 2007;32:2295–305.
162:913–9. [91] Denholm P, Kulcinski GL. Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas
[61] Yu Y, Wang X, Wang D, Huang K, Wang L, Bao L, et al. Environmental emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Convers Manage 2004;
characteristics comparison of Li-ion batteries and Ni–MH batteries under the 45:2153–72.
uncertainty of cycle performance. J Hazard Mater 2012;229:455–60. [92] Schoenung SM. Characteristics and technologies for long-vs. short-term energy
[62] Rahman MM, Alam CS, Ahsan T. A life cycle assessment model for quantification storage. Available: <https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.
of environmental footprints of a 3.6 kW p photovoltaic system in Bangladesh. Int cgi/2001/010765.pdf> [Accessed July 15 2018].
J Renewable Energy Dev 2019;8. [93] Kazempour SJ, Moghaddam MP, Haghifam M, Yousefi G. Electric energy storage
[63] Pellow MA, Ambrose H, Mulvaney D, Betita R, Shaw S. Research gaps in systems in a market-based economy: comparison of emerging and traditional
environmental life cycle assessments of lithium ion batteries for grid-scale technologies. Renewable Energy 2009;34:2630–9.
stationary energy storage systems: end-of-life options and other issues. [94] Lipman TE, Ramos R, Kammen DM. An assessment of battery and hydrogen
Sustainable MaterTechnol 2020;23:e00120. energy storage systems integrated with wind energy resources in California.
Available: <https://trid.trb.org/view/1376938> [Accessed July 10 2018].
25
[95] Ries G, Neumueller H-W. Comparison of energy storage in flywheels and SMES. [128] Kapila S, Oni AO, Kumar A. The development of techno-economic models for
Phys C 2001;357:1306–10. large-scale energy storage systems. Energy 2017;140:656–72.
[96] McDowall J. Integrating energy storage with wind power in weak electricity [129] Kapila S. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of large energy storage
grids. J Power Sources 2006;162:959–64. systems [M.Sc. thesis]. University of Alberta; 2018.
[97] Parker CD. Lead–acid battery energy-storage systems for electricity supply [130] Obi M, Jensen SM, Ferris JB, Bass RB. Calculation of levelized costs of electricity
networks. J Power Sources 2001;100:18–28. for various electrical energy storage systems. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
[98] Baker J. New technology and possible advances in energy storage. Energy Policy 2017;67:908–20.
2008;36:4368–73. [131] Jülch V. Comparison of electricity storage options using levelized cost of storage
[99] Rydh CJ. Environmental assessment of vanadium redox and lead-acid batteries (LCOS) method. Appl Energy 2016;183:1594–606.
for stationary energy storage. J Power Sources 1999;80:21–9. [132] Schmidt O, Melchior S, Hawkes A, Staffell I. Projecting the future levelized cost of
[100] Pickard WF, Shen AQ, Hansing NJ. Parking the power: Strategies and physical electricity storage technologies. Joule 2019;3:81–100.
limitations for bulk energy storage in supply–demand matching on a grid whose [133] Cui B, Wang S, Sun Y. Life-cycle cost benefit analysis and optimal design of small
input power is provided by intermittent sources. Renewable Sustainable Energy scale active storage system for building demand limiting. Energy 2014;73:
Rev 2009;13:1934–45. 787–800.
[101] Aifantis KE, Hackney SA, Kumar RV. High energy density lithium batteries: [134] Gupta R, Soini MC, Patel MK, Parra D. Levelized cost of solar photovoltaics and
materials, engineering, applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2010. wind supported by storage technologies to supply firm electricity. J Storage Mater
[102] Kondoh J, Ishii I, Yamaguchi H, Murata A, Otani K, Sakuta K, et al. Electrical 2020;27:101027.
energy storage systems for energy networks. Energy Convers Manage 2000;41: [135] Peters JF, Baumann M, Zimmermann B, Braun J, Weil M. The environmental
1863–74. impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters – a review. Renewable
[103] Saft Batteries. Available: <https://www.saftbatteries.com/> [Accessed Sustainable Energy Rev 2017;67:491–506.
Spetember 05 2018]. [136] Schmidt O, Hawkes A, Gambhir A, Staffell I. The future cost of electrical energy
[104] Du Pasquier A, Plitz I, Menocal S, Amatucci G. A comparative study of Li-ion storage based on experience rates. Nat Energy 2017;2:17110.
battery, supercapacitor and nonaqueous asymmetric hybrid devices for [137] Wu S, Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. Techno-economic analysis of an
automotive applications. J Power Sources 2003;115:171–8. integrated liquid air and thermochemical energy storage system. Energy Convers
[105] Adachi K, Tajima H, Hashimoto T, Kobayashi K. Development of 16 kWh power Manage 2020;205:112341.
storage system applying Li-ion batteries. J Power Sources 2003;119:897–901. [138] Kintner-Meyer M, Jin C, Balducci P, Elizondo M, Guo X, Nguyen T, et al. Energy
[106] Clark N, Doughty D. Development and testing of 100 kW/1 min Li-ion battery storage for variable renewable energy resource integration — a regional
systems for energy storage applications. J Power Sources 2005;146:798–803. assessment for the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP). In: 2011 IEEE/PES Power
[107] Kawakami N, Iijima Y, Fukuhara M, Bando M, Sakanaka Y, Ogawa K, et al. Systems Conference and Exposition; 2011. p. 1–7.
Development and field experiences of stabilization system using 34MW NAS [139] Locatelli G, Palerma E, Mancini M. Assessing the economics of large energy
batteries for a 51 MW wind farm. In: IEEE international symposium on industrial storage plants with an optimisation methodology. Energy 2015;83:15–28.
electronics; 2010. p. 2371–6. [140] Karellas S, Tzouganatos N. Comparison of the performance of compressed-air and
[108] Beck F, Rüetschi P. Rechargeable batteries with aqueous electrolytes. Electrochim hydrogen energy storage systems: Karpathos island case study. Renewable
Acta 2000;45:2467–82. Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;29:865–82.
[109] Yamamura T, Wu X, Ohta S, Shirasaki K, Sakuraba H, Satoh I, et al. Vanadium [141] Baumann M, Peters J, Weil M, Grunwald A. CO2 footprint and life-cycle costs of
solid-salt battery: solid state with two redox couples. J Power Sources 2011;196: electrochemical energy storage for stationary grid applications. Energy Technol
4003–11. 2017;5:1071–83.
[110] Wen Z, Cao J, Gu Z, Xu X, Zhang F, Lin Z. Research on sodium sulfur battery for [142] Brownson DAC, Kampouris DK, Banks CE. An overview of graphene in energy
energy storage. Solid State Ionics 2008;179:1697–701. production and storage applications. J Power Sources 2011;196:4873–85.
[111] Smith SC, Sen P, Kroposki B. Advancement of energy storage devices and [143] Ould Amrouche S, Rekioua D, Rekioua T, Bacha S. Overview of energy storage in
applications in electrical power system. In: Power and energy society general renewable energy systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:20914–27.
meeting-conversion and delivery of electrical energy in the 21st century, 2008. [144] Zobaa AF, Afifi SN, Aleem SH, Ribeiro PF. Energy storage at different voltage
IEEE; 2008. p. 1–8. levels: technology, integration, and market aspects. Institution of Engineering &
[112] Van der Linden S. Bulk energy storage potential in the USA, current developments Technology; 2018.
and future prospects. Energy 2006;31:3446–57. [145] Schoenung S. Energy storage systems cost update: a study for the DOE energy
[113] Hall PJ, Bain EJ. Energy-storage technologies and electricity generation. Energy storage systems program. SAND2011-2730 2011. Report prepared for Sandia
Policy 2008;36:4352–5. National Laboratories. Available: <https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/
[114] Smith W. The role of fuel cells in energy storage. J Power Sources 2000;86:74–83. access-control.cgi/2011/112730.pdf> [Accessed: April 2 2019].
[115] De-Boer P, Raadschelders J. Flow batteries. Leonardo Energy, briefing paper. [146] Connolly D. The integration of fluctuating renewable energy using energy storage.
Available: <http://www.leonardo-energy.org/> [Accessed April 02 2019]. PhD project, University of Limerick. 2010. Available: <http://powerlab.fsb.hr/ne
[116] Benitez LE, Benitez PC, Van Kooten GC. The economics of wind power with ven/pdf/Member_of_a_jury_for_PhD_thesis/David_Connolly_PhD_Dec_2010.pdf>
energy storage. Energy Econ 2008;30:1973–89. [Accessed April 2 2019].
[117] Li P. Energy storage is the core of renewable technologies. IEEE Nanatechnol Mag [147] Kleinberg M. Battery energy storage study for the 2017 IRP: Pacificorp. Available:
2008;2. <https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacifico
[118] Liu M, Tay NS, Bell S, Belusko M, Jacob R, Will G, et al. Review on concentrating rp/energy/integrated-resource-plan/2017-irp/2017-irp-support-and-studies/
solar power plants and new developments in high temperature thermal energy 10018304_R-01-D_PacifiCorp_Battery_Energy_Storage_Study.pdf> [Accessed May
storage technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2016;53:1411–32. 16 2020].
[119] International Renewable Energy Agency. Electricity storage and renewables: costs [148] Mongird K, Viswanathan VV, Balducci PJ, Alam MJE, Fotedar V, Koritarov VS,
and markets to 2030 Available: <https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/I et al. Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report: Pacific
RENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Oct/IRENA_Electricity_Storage_Costs_2017. Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). Available:
pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020]. <https://energystorage.pnnl.gov/pdf/PNNL-28866.pdf> [Accessed May 16
[120] International Renewable Energy Agency. Electricity storage valuation framework: 2020].
assessing system value and ensuring project viability. Available: <https://www. [149] Flueckiger SM, Iverson BD, Garimella SV. Simulation of a concentrating solar
irena.org/publications/2020/Mar/Electricity-Storage-Valuation-Framework-20 power plant with molten-salt thermocline storage for optimized annual
20> [Accessed May 06 2020]. performance. ASME 2013 7th International Conference on Energy Sustainability
[121] Kittner N, Schmidt O, Staffell I, Kammen DM. Chapter 8 – Grid-scale energy collocated with the ASME 2013 Heat Transfer Summer Conference and the ASME
storage. In: Junginger M, Louwen A, editors. Technological learning in the 2013 11th International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and
transition to a low-carbon energy system. Academic Press; 2020. p. 119–43. Technology. 2013. V001T03A11-VT03A11.
[122] Eckroad S, Gyuk I. EPRI-DOE handbook of energy storage for transmission & [150] Buiskikh D, Zakeri B, Syri S, Kauranen P. Economic feasibility of flow batteries in
distribution applications. Electric Power Research Institute, Inc; 2003. p. 3–35. grid-scale applications. In: 2018 15th International Conference on the European
[123] Mostafa MH, Abdel Aleem SHE, Ali SG, Ali ZM, Abdelaziz AY. Techno-economic Energy Market (EEM); 2018. p. 1–5.
assessment of energy storage systems using annualized life cycle cost of storage [151] Hameer S, van Niekerk JL. A review of large-scale electrical energy storage. Int J
(LCCOS) and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) metrics. J Storage Mater 2020;29: Energy Res 2015;39:1179–95.
101345. [152] Pei Y, Cavagnino A, Vaschetto S, Chai F, Tenconi A. Flywheel energy storage
[124] Tan X, Li Q, Wang H. Advances and trends of energy storage technology in systems for power systems application. In: 2017 6th International Conference on
microgrid. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;44:179–91. Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP); 2017. p. 492–501.
[125] Hittinger E, Whitacre JF, Apt J. What properties of grid energy storage are most [153] Masebinu SO, Akinlabi ET, Muzenda E, Aboyade AO. Techno-economic analysis
valuable? J Power Sources 2012;206:436–49. of grid-tied energy storage. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2018;15:231–42.
[126] Kintner-Meyer MC, Balducci PJ, Jin C, Nguyen TB, Elizondo MA, Viswanathan [154] Atherton J, Sharma R, Salgado J. Techno-economic analysis of energy storage
VV, et al. Energy storage for power systems applications: A regional assessment systems for application in wind farms. Energy 2017;135:540–52.
for the northwest power pool (NWPP): Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), [155] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. Cost metrics of electrical energy storage technologies
Richland, WA (United States). Available: <https://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ in potential power system operations. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2018;
ei/pdf/NWPP%20report.pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020]. 25:43–59.
[127] Das HS, Dey A, Tan CW, Yatim A. Feasibility analysis of standalone PV/wind/ [156] Staffell I, Rustomji M. Maximising the value of electricity storage. J Storage Mater
battery hybrid energy system for rural Bangladesh. Int J Renewable Energy Res 2016;8:212–25.
(IJRER) 2016;6:402–12.
26
[157] Generation of electricity and district heating, energy storage and energy carrier [188] Marocco P, Ferrero D, Gandiglio M, Ortiz MM, Sundseth K, Lanzini A, et al.
generation and conversion: technology data for energy plants Danish Energy A study of the techno-economic feasibility of H2-based energy storage systems in
Agency. Available: <https://ens.dk/en/our-services/projections-and-models remote areas. Energy Convers Manage 2020;211:112768.
/technology-data/technology-data-generation-electricity-and> [Accessed July 10 [189] Nguyen T, Abdin Z, Holm T, Mérida W. Grid-connected hydrogen production via
2018]. large-scale water electrolysis. Energy Convers Manage 2019;200:112108.
[158] Caralis G, Christakopoulos T, Karellas S, Gao Z. Analysis of energy storage systems [190] Ahmed N, Elfeky KE, Lu L, Wang QW. Thermal and economic evaluation of
to exploit wind energy curtailment in Crete. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev thermocline combined sensible-latent heat thermal energy storage system for
2019;103:122–39. medium temperature applications. Energy Convers Manage 2019;189:14–23.
[159] Kale V, Secanell M. A comparative study between optimal metal and composite [191] Poghosyan V, Hassan MI. Techno-economic assessment of substituting natural gas
rotors for flywheel energy storage systems. Energy Rep 2018;4:576–85. based heater with thermal energy storage system in parabolic trough
[160] Silva-Saravia H, Pulgar-Painemal H, Mauricio JM. Flywheel energy storage concentrated solar power plant. Renewable Energy 2015;75:152–64.
model, control and location for improving stability: the Chilean case. IEEE Trans [192] Rea JE, Oshman CJ, Olsen ML, Hardin CL, Glatzmaier GC, Siegel NP, et al.
Power Syst 2017;32:3111–9. Performance modeling and techno-economic analysis of a modular concentrated
[161] Cardenas R, Pena R, Asher G, Clare J. Control strategies for enhanced power solar power tower with latent heat storage. Appl Energy 2018;217:143–52.
smoothing in wind energy systems using a flywheel driven by a vector-controlled [193] Boudaoud S, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K, Behar O. Thermal performance prediction
induction machine. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2001;48:625–35. and sensitivity analysis for future deployment of molten salt cavity receiver solar
[162] Kailasan A. Preliminary design and analysis of an energy storage flywheel [PhD power plants in Algeria. Energy Convers Manage 2015;89:655–64.
thesis]. Charlottesville, VA, USA: University of Virginia; 2013. [194] Seitz M, Johnson M, Hübner S. Economic impact of latent heat thermal energy
[163] Amber Kinetics Inc. Smart grid demonstration program. Available: <http storage systems within direct steam generating solar thermal power plants with
s://www.smartgrid.gov/files/documents/Amber_Kinetics_Final_Technical_Repo parabolic troughs. Energy Convers Manage 2017;143:286–94.
rt.pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020]. [195] Xu B, Li P, Chan C. Application of phase change materials for thermal energy
[164] Amiryar ME, Pullen KR. A review of flywheel energy storage system technologies storage in concentrated solar thermal power plants: a review to recent
and their applications. Appl Sci 2017;7:286. developments. Appl Energy 2015;160:286–307.
[165] Rupp A, Baier H, Mertiny P, Secanell M. Analysis of a flywheel energy storage [196] Schoenung S. Economic analysis of large-scale hydrogen storage for renewable
system for light rail transit. Energy 2016;107:625–38. utility applications. Available: <https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/
[166] Brown DR, Chvala WD. Flywheel energy storage: an alternative to batteries for access-control.cgi/2011/114845.pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020].
UPS systems. Energy Eng 2005;102:7–26. [197] Medina P, Bizuayehu AW, Catalão JP, Rodrigues EM, Contreras J. Electrical
[167] Sioshansi R, Denholm P, Jenkin T. A comparative analysis of the value of pure and energy storage systems: technologies’ state-of-the-art, techno-economic benefits
hybrid electricity storage. Energy Econ 2011;33:56–66. and applications analysis. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System
[168] Rastler D. Electricity energy storage technology options: a white paper primer on sciences; 2014. p. 2295–304.
applications, costs and benefits: Electric Power Research Institute. Available: [198] Gracia L, Casero P, Bourasseau C, Chabert A. Use of hydrogen in off-grid
<http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/doshay1/docs/EPRI.pdf> locations, a techno-economic assessment. Energies 2018;11:3141.
[Accessed May 16 2020]. [199] Guandalini G, Campanari S, Romano MC. Power-to-gas plants and gas turbines for
[169] Kintner-Meyer M, Jin C, Balducci P, Elizondo M, Guo X, Nguyen T, et al. Energy improved wind energy dispatchability: energy and economic assessment. Appl
storage for variable renewable energy resource integration—a regional Energy 2015;147:117–30.
assessment for the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP). In: Power Systems Conference [200] Jafari M, Armaghan D, Seyed Mahmoudi SM, Chitsaz A. Thermoeconomic
and Exposition (PSCE), 2011. IEEE/PES; 2011. p. 1–7. analysis of a standalone solar hydrogen system with hybrid energy storage. Int J
[170] Auer J, Keil J, Stobbe A, AG DB, Mayer T. State-of-the-art electricity storage Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:19614–27.
systems. Available: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstrac [201] Petrollese M, Arena S, Cascetta M, Casti E, Cau G. Techno-economic comparison
t_id=2882202> [Accessed May 16 2020]. of different thermal energy storage technologies for medium-scale CSP plants. AIP
[171] Kaun B, Chen S. Cost-effectiveness of energy storage in California. Available: Conf Proc 2019;2191:020128.
<http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/cabrera1/docs/3002001162. [202] Rodríguez JM, Sánchez D, Martínez GS, Bennouna EG, Ikken B. Techno-economic
pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020]. assessment of thermal energy storage solutions for a 1MWe CSP-ORC power plant.
[172] Li Y, Miao S, Luo X, Yin B, Han J, Wang J. Dynamic modelling and techno- Sol Energy 2016;140:206–18.
economic analysis of adiabatic compressed air energy storage for emergency [203] Andika R, Kim Y, Yoon SH, Kim DH, Choi JS, Lee M. Techno-economic assessment
back-up power in supporting microgrid. Appl Energy 2020;261:114448. of technological improvements in thermal energy storage of concentrated solar
[173] Zhou Q, He Q, Lu C, Du D. Techno-economic analysis of advanced adiabatic power. Sol Energy 2017;157:552–8.
compressed air energy storage system based on life cycle cost. J Cleaner Prod [204] Bayon A, Bader R, Jafarian M, Fedunik-Hofman L, Sun Y, Hinkley J, et al. Techno-
;265:121768. economic assessment of solid–gas thermochemical energy storage systems for
[174] Beacon Power. Carbon fiber flywheels. Available: <https://beaconpower.com/ solar thermal power applications. Energy 2018;149:473–84.
carbon-fiber-flywheels/> [Accessed May 13 2020]. [205] European Commission. SOLGATE: solar Hybrid Gas Turbine Electric Power
[175] Active Power. Improving sustainability with flywheel UPS. Available: <https:// System. Available: <https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/p
powersafe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/wp120-improving-sustainabilit ublication/e4f88dd1-74ac-4416-aba0-3868cc8ea5ca> [Accessed May 10 2018].
y-with-flywheel-ups.pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020]. [206] Heller L, Gauche P. Modeling of the rock bed thermal energy storage system of a
[176] Belderbos A, Delarue E, Kessels K, D’Haeseleer W. Levelized cost of storage — combined cycle solar thermal power plant in South Africa. Sol Energy 2013;93:
introducing novel metrics. Energy Econ 2017;67:287–99. 345–56.
[177] Schmidt TS, Beuse M, Zhang X, Steffen B, Schneider SF, Pena-Bello A, et al. [207] Strasser MN, Selvam RP. A cost and performance comparison of packed bed and
Additional emissions and cost from storing electricity in stationary battery structured thermocline thermal energy storage systems. Sol Energy 2014;108:
systems. Environ Sci Technol 2019;53:3379–90. 390–402.
[178] Dufo-López R, Bernal-Agustín JL. Techno-economic analysis of grid-connected [208] Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Cost and performance analysis of concentrating
battery storage. Energy Convers Manage 2015;91:394–404. solar power systems with integrated latent thermal energy storage. Energy 2014;
[179] Steward D, Saur G, Penev M, Ramsden T. Lifecycle cost analysis of hydrogen 64:793–810.
versus other technologies for electrical energy storage. Available: <https://www. [209] Hayward J, Graham P. Electricity generation technology cost projections: 2017-
nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46719.pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020]. 2050. Available: <https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:
[180] Mantz RJ, De Battista H. Hydrogen production from idle generation capacity of EP178771&dsid=DS2> [Accessed May 16 2020].
wind turbines. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:4291–300. [210] Lazard. Lazard’s levelized cost of storage analysis, Version 3.0. Available: <http
[181] Bernal-Agustín JL, Dufo-López R. Hourly energy management for grid-connected s://www.lazard.com/media/450338/lazard-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-30.
wind–hydrogen systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:6401–13. pdf> [Accessed May 16 2020].
[182] Anderson D, Leach M. Harvesting and redistributing renewable energy: on the [211] Cole WJ, Frazier A. Cost projections for utility-scale battery storage. 2019.
role of gas and electricity grids to overcome intermittency through the generation Available: <https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73222.pdf> [Accessed May 16
and storage of hydrogen. Energy Policy 2004;32:1603–14. 2020].
[183] Aguado M, Ayerbe E, Azcárate C, Blanco R, Garde R, Mallor F, et al. Economical [212] Nykvist B, Nilsson M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles.
assessment of a wind–hydrogen energy system using WindHyGen® software. Int J Nat Clim Change 2015;5:329–32.
Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:2845–54. [213] Keck F, Lenzen M, Vassallo A, Li M. The impact of battery energy storage for
[184] Zafirakis DP. 2 – Overview of energy storage technologies for renewable energy renewable energy power grids in Australia. Energy 2019;173:647–57.
systems. In: Kaldellis JK, editor. Stand-alone and hybrid wind energy systems. [214] Gröger O, Gasteiger HA, Suchsland J-P. Review—electromobility: batteries or fuel
Woodhead Publishing; 2010. p. 29–80. cells? J Electrochem Soc 2015;162:A2605–22.
[185] Parra D, Patel MK. Techno-economic implications of the electrolyser technology [215] Hawkins TR, Gausen OM, Strømman AH. Environmental impacts of hybrid and
and size for power-to-gas systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:3748–61. electric vehicles—a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2012;17:997–1014.
[186] Preuster P, Alekseev A, Wasserscheid P. Hydrogen storage technologies for future [216] Nealer R, Hendrickson TP. Review of recent lifecycle assessments of energy and
energy systems. Ann Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2017;8:445–71. greenhouse gas emissions for electric vehicles. Current Sustainable/Renewable
[187] Ferrero D, Gamba M, Lanzini A, Santarelli M. Power-to-gas hydrogen: techno- Energy Rep 2015;2:66–73.
economic assessment of processes towards a multi-purpose energy carrier. Energy [217] Oliveira L, Messagie M, Mertens J, Laget H, Coosemans T, Van Mierlo J.
Procedia 2016;101:50–7. Environmental performance of electricity storage systems for grid applications, a
life cycle approach. Energy Convers Manage 2015;101:326–35.
27
[218] Abdon A, Zhang X, Parra D, Patel MK, Bauer C, Worlitschek J. Techno-economic [237] Sternberg A, Bardow A. Power-to-What? – environmental assessment of energy
and environmental assessment of stationary electricity storage technologies for storage systems. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:389–400.
different time scales. Energy 2017;139:1173–87. [238] Thaker S, Oni AO, Gemechu E, Kumar A. Evaluating energy and greenhouse gas
[219] Burkhardt JJ, Heath G, Turchi C. Life cycle assessment of a model parabolic emission footprints of thermal energy storage systems for concentrated solar
trough concentrating solar power plant with thermal energy storage. In: ASME power applications. J Storage Mater 2019;26:100992.
2010 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability; 2010. p. 599–608. [239] Weber S, Peters JF, Baumann M, Weil M. Life cycle assessment of a vanadium
[220] Wang Q, Liu W, Yuan X, Tang H, Tang Y, Wang M, et al. Environmental impact Redox flow battery. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52:10864–73.
analysis and process optimization of batteries based on life cycle assessment. [240] Torres O. Life cycle assessment of a pumped storage power plant: Institutt for
J Cleaner Prod 2018;174:1262–73. Energi-og Prosessteknikk: Institutt for Energi-og Prosessteknikk. Available: <https
[221] Bouman EA, Øberg MM, Hertwich EG. Environmental impacts of balancing ://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/234503/455355_FULLTE
offshore wind power with compressed air energy storage (CAES). Energy 2016; XT01.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y> [Accessed May 17 2020].
95:91–8. [241] Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, Strømman AH. Life cycle environmental
[222] Hiremath M, Derendorf K, Vogt T. Comparative life cycle assessment of battery assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid
storage systems for stationary applications. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49: and battery electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:4548–54.
4825–33. [242] Zackrisson M, Avellán L, Orlenius J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries
[223] Oró E, Gil A, De Gracia A, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Comparative life cycle assessment of for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles – critical issues. J Cleaner Prod 2010;18:
thermal energy storage systems for solar power plants. Renewable Energy 2012; 1519–29.
44:166–73. [243] Troy S, Schreiber A, Reppert T, Gehrke H-G, Finsterbusch M, Uhlenbruck S, et al.
[224] Ellingsen LA-W, Hung CR, Strømman AH. Identifying key assumptions and Life cycle assessment and resource analysis of all-solid-state batteries. Appl
differences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with Energy 2016;169:757–67.
focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Transp Res Part D: Transp nd Environ 2017; [244] Arbabzadeh M, Johnson JX, Keoleian GA. Parameters driving environmental
55:82–90. performance of energy storage systems across grid applications. J Storage Mater
[225] McManus MC. Environmental consequences of the use of batteries in low carbon 2017;12:11–28.
systems: the impact of battery production. Appl Energy 2012;93:288–95. [245] Swain B. Recovery and recycling of lithium: a review. Sep Purif Technol 2017;
[226] Vandepaer L, Cloutier J, Bauer C, Amor B. Integrating batteries in the future Swiss 172:388–403.
electricity supply system: a consequential environmental assessment. J Ind Ecol [246] Brandt AR, Dale M, Barnhart CJ. Calculating systems-scale energy efficiency and
2019;23:709–25. net energy returns: a bottom-up matrix-based approach. Energy 2013;62:235–47.
[227] Elzein H, Dandres T, Levasseur A, Samson R. How can an optimized life cycle [247] Goedkoop M. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment.
assessment method help evaluate the use phase of energy storage systems? Available: <https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10011909509/> [Accessed May 16 2020].
J Cleaner Prod 2019;209:1624–36. [248] Stougie L, Del Santo G, Innocenti G, Goosen E, Vermaas D, van der Kooi H, et al.
[228] Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I. Attributional and Multi-dimensional life cycle assessment of decentralised energy storage systems.
consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13:339–49. Energy 2019;182:535–43.
[229] Ekvall T, Azapagic A, Finnveden G, Rydberg T, Weidema BP, Zamagni A. [249] Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver A, Struijs J, Report Zelm R,
Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. Int J Life Cycle Assess et al. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised
2016;21:293–6. category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Netherlands:
[230] Kua HW, Kamath S. An attributional and consequential life cycle assessment of Ministry of Housing Spatial planning and the Environment (VROM); 2008.
substituting concrete with bricks. J Cleaner Prod 2014;81:190–200. p. 2009.
[231] Kapila S, Oni AO, Gemechu ED, Kumar A. Development of net energy ratios and [250] Hsu DD, O’Donoughue P, Fthenakis V, Heath GA, Kim HC, Sawyer P, et al. Life
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of large-scale mechanical energy storage cycle greenhouse gas emissions of crystalline silicon photovoltaic electricity
systems. Energy 2019;170:592–603. generation. J Ind Ecol 2012;16:S122–35.
[232] Masruroh NA, Li B, Klemeš J. Life cycle analysis of a solar thermal system with [251] Dolan SL, Heath GA. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind
thermochemical storage process. Renewable Energy 2006;31:537–48. power. J Ind Ecol 2012;16:S136–54.
[233] Heath G, Turchi C, Decker T, Burkhardt J, Kutscher C. Life cycle assessment of [252] Rahman MM, Salehin S, Ahmed SSU, Sadrul Islam AKM. Chapter two –
thermal energy storage: two-tank indirect and thermocline. In: ASME 2009 3rd environmental impact assessment of different renewable energy resources: a
international conference on energy sustainability collocated with the heat transfer recent development. In: Rasul MG, Ak Azad, Sharma SC, editors. Clean energy for
and InterPACK09 conferences; 2009. p. 689–90. sustainable development. Academic Press; 2017. p. 29–71.
[234] Torell W. Lifecycle carbon footprint analysis of batteries vs. flywheels. Available: [253] Di Lullo G, Gemechu E, Oni AO, Kumar A. Extending sensitivity analysis using
<https://download.schneider-electric.com/files?p_enDocType=White+Paper&p_ regression to effectively disseminate life cycle assessment results. Int J Life Cycle
File_Name=VAVR-9KZQVW_R0_EN.pdf&p_Doc_Ref=SPD_VAVR-9KZQVW_EN> Assess 2020;25:222–39.
[Accessed May 16 2020]. [254] Jülch V, Telsnig T, Schulz M, Hartmann N, Thomsen J, Eltrop L, et al. A holistic
[235] Ryan NA, Lin Y, Mitchell-Ward N, Mathieu JL, Johnson JX. Use-Phase drives comparative analysis of different storage systems using levelized cost of storage
lithium-ion battery life cycle environmental impacts when used for frequency and life cycle indicators. Energy Procedia 2015;73:18–28.
regulation. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52:10163–74. [255] Fernandez-Marchante CM, Millán M, Medina-Santos JI, Lobato J. Environmental
[236] Peters J, Buchholz D, Passerini S, Weil M. Life cycle assessment of sodium-ion and preliminary cost assessments of redox flow batteries for renewable energy
batteries. Energy Environ Sci 2016;9:1744–51. storage. Energy Technology; n/a:1900914.
28

Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies - A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies - A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies - A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

Assessment of energy storage technologies: A review

1. Introduction Environmental regulations have set GHG emission reduction targets in

Energy storage technologies

Values in parenthesis represent the number of projects.

Fig. 2. The top ten countries by installed capacity of ESSs [68].

Table 2 flywheels) for 30 s [68].

Total capital cost Storage unit cost

Fig. 3. ESS’s generalized total life cycle cost structure.

Table 4 Although most of the studies used LCOE as a performance indicator

The capital cost per cycle is between $0.06 and

Y = yes and N = no.

44% and 26%,

21.91 g-CO2eq/ The emissions calculation

Cycle Inventory DBeq/kWh, analysis. The emissions

emissions for using the

(continued on next page)

(40%), and resources

You might also like