1 s2.0 S0196890423009093 Main

Energy Conversion and Management 294 (2023) 117563
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman
Power control of PV and grid-assisted CAES system integrated into

SONATRACH LPG SP1 ELR1 pumping station with thermal energy recovery
from flared LPG
Youcef Messaoudi a, c, Noureddine Cherrad a, b, *, Boubekeur Dokkar b, Soufiane Halimi a,
Fayçal Boudjelab c, Yacine Saidani c, Fayçal Senouci c, Abderrahim Belloufi a, b, Khadra Aliouat a,
Mourad Mezoudj b
a
Laboratoire de Mécanique Appliquée et Systèmes Energétiques (LMASE), Faculty of Applied Sciences, Kasdi Merbah University, Ouargla 30000, Algeria
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Kasdi Merbah University, Ouargla 30000, Algeria
c
Division d’Exploitation, Région Haoud El-Hamra (RTH), Activité de Transport par Canalisation (TRC), SONATRACH, Algeria
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The Algerian National Company for the Transport and Marketing of Hydrocarbons (SONATRACH) provides crude
SONATRACH pumping station oil, natural gas, condensate, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which recorded an average invoiced electricity
PV consumption of 1.3 M$/yr from 2017 to 2022 for Region of Transport Haoud El-Hamra (RTH) alone. LPG SP1 ELR1
CAES
(Pumping Station 1 of Expansion Line 1 at Alrar-Hassi R’mel), as one of the RTH pumping stations, indicated a
Flared LPG
Power control
considerable electricity supply through three 220 KV overhead electrical lines, reduced to 5.5 KV using the trans
CO2 emissions formers to ensure a station input power of around 4.5 MW, representing a loss of 21 % of annual consumption.
However, the input power is never fully utilized by the station and paid on average 391.6 K$/yr added to equipping
the station with transformers at an extra cost of 1.78 M$ and the power outages from the grid resulting in significant
losses of 105.6 K$/h in pumped LPG sales. This paper presents the first process study of a photovoltaic (PV) and
electrical grid-assisted Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) system integrated into the LPG SP1 ELR1 with the
flared LPG recovery to achieve electrical independence, and it includes a system analysis on process optimization,
cost, and environmental impact. The study discusses a combination of PV, electrical grid, and, in particular, the
CAES process simulated using ASPEN HYSYS software to control its output power, including three scenarios:
without air thermal energy recovery (ATER), with ATER, and with LPG thermal energy recovery (LPG-TER). Ac
cording to the results, the CAES with LPG-TER demonstrated a more than 100 % increase in power delivery, cor
responding to approximately 10 MW of generated power compared to input power of 4.5 MW, thus exceeding the
needs of the pumping station by two times. In addition, the comparison with the literature-mentioned competing
systems underscores the system’s superiority, with a 32 %, 55 %, and 66–68 % improvement over D-CAES, I-CAES,
and A-CAES, respectively. The study revealed that achieving power grid independence through the CAES system
resulted in annual capital and operating cost savings of 2.22 M$/yr. Adopting the CAES system can significantly
reduce CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion to power the grid, resulting in a 29 % decrease in combined
emissions from LPG and natural gas. The study’s extended findings to similar SONATRACH pumping stations show a
reducing CO2 emissions by 22.17 % and savings of 3679 MW/yr. Beyond SONATARCH, the system offers savings
and flaring reduction from 100 MW/day and 5.28 bbl/day up to 42400 MW/day and 2329.5 bbl/day.
Abbreviations: ABB, ASEA Brown Boveri Company; API, American Petroleum Institute; AST, Aire Srorage Tank; ATER, Air Thermal Eergy Recovery; CAES,
Compressed Air Energy Storage; CP, Compressor; CS, Chao-Seader Semi-Empirical Method; GEP, Group of electric pumps; GP, Generator Power; GS, Grayson-Streed
Semi-Empirical Method; GTP, Generator of Total Power; IN, Inlet; LPG SP1 ELR1, LPG Pumping Station 1 of Expansion Line 1, Alrar-Hassi R’mel; LPG, Liquid
Petroleum Gas; Margules, Margules Liquid Vapor Model; NRTL, Non-Random-Two-Liquid Vapor Model; OUT, Outlet; PCS, Pressure Control System; PR, Peng-
Robinson Equation of State; SARPI, Société Algérienne de Réalisation de Projets Industriels; SONATRACH, Société nationale pour la recherche, la production, le
transport, la transformation, et la commercialisation des hydrocarbures; SONELGAZ, Société Nationale de l’Electricité et du Gaz; SRK, Soave Redlich Kwong Equation
of State; ST, Stream; TER, Thermal Energy Recovery; TES, Thermal energy storage; TEXP, Turbo-Expander; TRC, Transport activity by Canalization; UNIQUAC,
Universal Quasi Chemical Liquid Vapor Model; WEM, Work From Electrical Motor.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Cherrad).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117563
Received 10 May 2023; Received in revised form 16 August 2023; Accepted 17 August 2023
Available online 30 August 2023
0196-8904/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Messaoudi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 294 (2023) 117563
Nomenclature Tci Critical temperature (◦ C)

Tri Reduced temperature (◦ C)
a Activity of species i (Pa) UA Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/◦ C)
AF Air Flow (m3/h) V Volume (m3)
H Enthalpy (J/kg) x liquid mole fraction
kij Binary Interaction Parameter Z Compressibility factor
LMTD Logarithmic mean temperature difference (◦ C). Δh Mass enthalpie change (J/kg)
N Number of components ΔP Pressure change (bar)
P Pressure (bar) ΔT Temperature change (◦ C)
Pci Critical pressure (Pa) ω Acentric factor
R Universal gas constant (J/(mol.K))
S Entropy (J/(K.kg)) Subscripts
T Temperature (◦ C) ID Ideal Gas
Tamb Ambiant Temperature (◦ C) 0 Reference state
1. Introduction voltage to 5.5 KV at each group, enabling a maximum consumption of

approximately 16 MW for the first group, 20 MW for the second group,
The combustion of fossil fuels accounts for 85 % of worldwide pri and 10 MW for the third group. SONATRACH must pay average con
mary energy consumption today. The widespread usage of fossil fuels sumption of 220 kV amounting to 391.6 K$ for the SP1 ELR1 station
has resulted in a rapid rise in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. alone (Table 1) and equip the station with transformers at an extra cost
The power and heat generation industry, which accounts for 25 % of of 1.78 M$ to ensure voltage reduction to 5.5 kV adapted to the station’s
total GHG emissions, produces the majority [1]. demand [3], which represents a power loss of 60,593 kWh/yr, or about
While natural gas provides almost 97 % of Algeria’s power, SONA 21 % of annual consumption [4]. Specifically for the LPG SP1 ELR1
TRACH, The Algerian National Company for the Transport and Mar station, its power requirement from the second group is 4.5 MW as the
keting of Hydrocarbons, uses an excessive amount of electricity to power maximum consumption for this station. The transformers are closely
its numerous operations, particularly for the Hydrocarbon Transport monitored and operated remotely from the control building.
activity by Canalization (TRC), which recorded an average invoiced However, the available power, with a maximum capacity of 4.5 MW,
consumption of 1.3 M$/yr, from 2017 to 2022, for the Region of is never fully utilized by the station. Table 1 details the monthly peak
Transport Haoud El-Hamra Station (RTH) alone. RTH is one of seven power achieved and consumed energy in kWh for the station under
transportation sectors providing crude oil, condensate, liquefied petro consideration, giving an overview of the station’s monthly power usage
leum gas (LPG), and natural gas. In 2015, RTH had a network of pipe established based on electricity consumption bill statistics made avail
lines of around 19,623 km, compared to 14,915 km in 2005, an able to us.
extension of 4,708 km. RTH’s stations include the new 4.5 MTA (Million
Tonnes per Annum) LPG SP1 ELR1 pumping station built by SONA 1.2. Power outages impact
TRACH to boost the transportability of LPG from 6.5 MTA to 11 MTA
[2]. In addition, a small emergency power plant, consisting of Storage
Batteries, Gas Turbine Generators, and Diesel Generators, is installed at
1.1. SONATRACH’s electricity supply challenges the pumping station to mitigate the impact of unexpected power outages
from the electrical grid. This setup ensures a continuous supply of
The load assessment of the SONATRACH LPG SP1 stations revealed a electricity for critical functions, such as the lubrication process of the
significant electrical supply provided by SONELGAZ, the electricity rotating machines, operation of the telecommunications network, and
producer, via three 220 kV overhead electrical lines to ensure electricity monitoring of the station and fire network. Unfortunately, when faced
redundancy. Due to technical constraints, SONATRACH utilizes main with unforeseen power outages from the grid, SONATRACH incurs sig
transformers to reduce the voltage to 30 KV. Subsequently, via two 60 nificant losses in its share of pumped LPG, crude oil, and condensate
KV overhead electrical lines, the electricity is transmitted to three SP1 sales. For the LPG SP1 ELR1 station alone, this loss is around 1600 m3/h
pumping stations groups. Second transformers further reduce the of LPG, resulting in a daily financial loss of 105.6 K$/h based on an
Table 1
Electrical power and costs for the LPG SP1 ELR1 station over the three last years.
Month Available power (MW) 2020 2021 2022
Max Power (MW) Amount (K$) Max Power (MW) Amount (K$) Max Power (MW) Amount (K$)
January 4.5 2.8 38.5 2.5 28.7 3.0 36.2

February 4.5 2.8 39.4 2.5 37.8 2.4 29.8
March 4.5 2.8 41.0 2.5 39.5 2.2 27.7
April 4.5 2.7 40.3 2.5 37.3 2.2 27.7
May 4.5 2.7 36.3 2.2 34.7 2.4 30.8
June 4.5 1.8 31.6 2.8 39.3 2.5 33.4
July 4.5 2.2 33.8 2.8 35.5 3.3 36.8
August 4.5 2.6 36.5 3.1 36.4 2.7 37.1
September 4.5 1.5 23.2 2.9 33.9 2.6 33.9
October 4.5 0.6 19.6 2.3 30.7 2.0 28.2
November 4.5 0.7 19.8 2.2 30.9 2.0 27.8
December 4.5 0.9 21.3 2.7 31.6 2.0 27.8
Total / / 381.4 / 416.2 / 377.2
2
assumed LPG price of 0.066 $/l. In 2005, a statistic revealed 56 oil plants of this type are worldwide, such as Huntorf in Germany (290 MW)
pumping stoppages and 10 LPG pumping stoppages due to power cuts. and McIntosh in the USA (110 MW). The first went operational in 1978,
These unexpected power outages can occur multiple times throughout and the second in 1991 [15].
the year, lasting up to a week, especially in the summer. As a result, Compressed air has not been widely recognized or adopted as an
SONATRACH finds itself in an unfavorable position regarding contrac energy carrier for utility-scale energy supply. Its power density is low,
tual obligations towards its customers. and transportation losses are high compared to electricity, gas, and heat,
which can be the main reason for this situation. Nevertheless, com
1.3. Energy transition pressed air was and is still a storage medium for electrical energy at the
utility-scale [16].
On the other hand, the Algerian energy sector has shown a desire to The literature review encompasses several studies [17–27] that used
initiate an energy transition focused on productivity and energy effi simulation tools to evaluate the CAES process performance, compo
ciency in production, transport, and distribution, as well as an energy nents, and integrated system and to explore the modeling and evaluation
mix that includes renewable sources to play an increasingly dominant of CAES systems integrated with energy sources.
role. In 2012, the Algerian Government set out the Renewable Energies Li [22] presented an Adiabatic CAES (A-CAES) evaluation integrated
Development and Energy Efficiency Program. It establishes a clear with PV output in western China. The study investigates the perfor
objective to achieve 22 GW with 13.6 GW of solar energy by 2030. mance of A-CAES under different weather conditions and rated power
However, Algeria currently produces only 343 MW of solar power and configurations. The results indicate optimal conditions with an average
anticipates achieving 13.6 GW by 2025. Indeed, the TAFOUKL project, capacity of 5.936 MWh/day and an efficiency of 53.49 % on 1800 kW
launched in May 2020, is expected to help the country catch up in the rated power. Sarmast et al. [23] introduced the coverage-percentage
renewable energy industry with 64,000 ha of solar panels. It also calls method for sizing CAES systems. The results demonstrate significant
for numerous solar power plants with a total capacity of 4 GW and a differences compared to previous methodologies, highlighting the
financing investment of 3.6 B$. importance of accurately sizing CAES systems. For example, a cavern
Furthermore, during the World Energy Congress, which was held in size of 950 MWh in Ontario can cover only 48 % of Ontario’s charging
Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) from September 9 to 12, 2020, the potential. Bashiri Mousavi et al. [24] investigated an efficient and green
President of the Algerian Energy Committee stated that the SONELGAZ A-CAES system with a cascade-packed bed thermal energy storage filled
and SONATRACH groups collaborate to deal with current and future with encapsulated phase-change materials. The results show round trip
energy demand and that Algeria has favored combined-cycle power energy and exergy efficiencies of 61.5 % and 68.2 %, respectively, with a
plants, more energy-efficient. payback period of 3.5 years. Jin [25] proposed a dynamic modeling
In this regard, SONATRACH has already launched to investigate the approach for a hybrid CAES and wind turbine system. The results
feasibility of installing combined-cycle power plants. In this case, the demonstrate a 38 % reduction in power output fluctuation and a three-
combination of renewable energies and energy storage plays an hour extension of the stable operation period compared to a standalone
increasingly important role in the current energy system due to the wind turbine. Ahmed Gouda et al. [26] presented an economical and
intensive development of renewable energy sources producing irregular experimental study of large and small-scale CAES systems integrated
and unpredictable electricity. Growing installed capacity in renewable with PV arrays and wind turbine generators, providing insights into the
energy sources drives demand for energy storage in power systems [5]. effectiveness of the proposed models for different case studies. Jafar
Energy storage has recently attracted attention as a promising way to izadeh et al. [27] conducted a parametric study of the Huntorf Plant, the
utilize fluctuating renewable energy [6]. Currently, storing electricity first commercialized CAES facility. The study analyzed plant charac
systems on a large scale include only pumped storage and compressed teristics and performed simulations to evaluate plant performance-
air energy storage (CAES) [7], which can store electricity with com enhancing methods. The evaluation revealed that regeneration,
pressed air as a working medium [8]. compression cooling, water injection, and steam injection improved
plant round-trip efficiency by 37.81 %, 3.22 %, 2.5 %, and 2.78 %,
1.4. CAES overview respectively.
These studies discussed above collectively contribute to under
Meanwhile, pumped-storage plants require the existence of a water standing CAES systems development integrated with energy sources and
reservoir, such as a lake, located at the foot of a mountain, on top of heat exchange, providing valuable insights into their performance, ef
which an upper tank. An alternative to pumped storage and CAES is ficiency, economic viability, and potential for enhancement through
liquid air energy storage (LAES) power plants, which can store large various optimization strategies. A CAES system can be classified into
amounts of energy at decreased storage volumes [9]. The LAES tech three categories, diabatic, adiabatic, and isothermal.
nology is not as well-known and tested as CAES, and a research facility In a diabatic CAES (D-CAES) system, the heat generated during
of LAES was built in 2011 in the UK, with a power capacity of 350 kW compression is wasted into the environment by surrounding air, and
and a capacity of 2.5 MWh. Since of its simplified configuration, it has external energy sources, such as a natural gas burner, are required to
poor performance, and its efficiency is around 8 % [10]. A novel poly- compensate for this energy loss and preheat the air before expansion. In
generation system based on LAES and a multi-stage flash (MSF) desali contrast, efforts are underway to develop A-CAES systems that address
nation showed round-trip energy and exergy efficiencies of 63.6 % and this issue. The A-CAES with thermal energy storage (TES) stores and
61 %, respectively [11]. Another multi-generation system without LAES, absorbs thermal energy using a thermal energy reservoir, which is later
including a heliostat field, a CO2 cycle, a desalination unit, an electro released during discharge to raise the air temperature and improve ef
dialysis unit, and a combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) ficiency. In addition, a developed isothermal CAES (I-CAES) system
showed energy and exergy efficiencies at 22.39 % and 40.24 %, allowed for reducing energy loss by achieving air compression and
respectively [12]. For an integrated cycle of a system comprising a storage using an isothermal air compression method, and the subsequent
multi-effect desalination system, an organic Rankine cycle, a centrifuge, isothermal air expansion generates power [28]. Table 2 provides fea
and process heaters by utilizing a mix of bagasse and municipal solid tures about each type of CAES, including the challenges, advantages,
waste as primary fuels, the electricity generation was 36.6 MW [13]. In a and maximum efficiency.
study presenting the design, analysis, and optimization of a novel mul
tigeneration facility conducted to generate power, cooling, heating, and 1.5. SONATRACH initiatives
freshwater, the resulting work output of the system was 48.32 kW [14].
However, CAES technology is relatively well known, and large ancient SONATRACH can equip its stations with PV panels; technology
3
Table 2
Features of main CAES systems with their challenges, advantages, and maximum efficiency [29].
CAES Features Challenges/Advantages Max
classification efficiency
D-CAES Heat is generated and dissipated into the atmosphere during the compression • Thermal loss during the charging period; 54 %
process, and fossil fuel is burned in a combustion chamber to preheat the high- • Fossil fuel dependency and environmental impacts;
pressure air before expansion occurs. • Geological constraints.
• The system is easy to install and control, and when the
air reservoir is empty, it can operate as a gas turbine.
A-CAES without High-pressure and temperature air are generated from the compressor and stored • There are material challenges associated with air tanks; 70 %
TES in the same insulated storage tank. • The inability to compress the air to high pressures.
• Environmentally friendly;
• No need to reheat the air during the expansion process;
• There is a reduction in thermal energy loss
A-CAES with Air’s thermal energy after each compression stage is stored in separate TES and • High power consumption results from the significant 75 %
TES used to preheat the discharged air before the expansion process. temperature rise during adiabatic compression;
• Requirement of high-temperature TES in some cases;
• Technical and safety issues associated with the use of
high-temperature TES;
• Cost of the TES element.
• The same power generation is achieved with a smaller
tank, leading to enhanced roundtrip efficiency.
I-CAES The compression and expansion process happens without facing the inherent • Slowing down the compression and expansion processes 100 %
challenges related to temperature variations (under isothermal conditions). allows sufficient time for effective heat exchange;
• Achieving near isothermal compression/expansion and
maintaining a constant temperature poses challenges;
• The limited heat transfer capability of conventional
compressors hinders achieving near-isothermal
compression;
• The goal is to achieve a high heat transfer rate;
• Specialized machines are required to handle efficient
heat transfer.
• Enhancing heat transfer efficiency and minimizing heat
loss;
• Removing the necessity for TES;
• Improving the efficiency of CAES.
which has been advanced in Algeria, in particular SONATRACH incurring significant losses in its sales of LPG, crude oil, and condensate.
renewable park, under SOLAR LAB supervision, already commissioned In the RTH region alone, the pumping process involves approximately
with a capacity of nearly 400 MW, including Bir Rebaa Nord (BRN) 147 MTA of crude oil, 21 MTA of LPG, and 11.4 MTA of condensate.
project with a power capacity of 10 MW [30]. However, to ensure the These quantities correspond to an annual income of 91.7B$/yr,
availability of electricity 24 h a day, the energy storage system based on assuming a crude oil price of 76 $/bbl, an LPG price of 10.5 $/bbl, and a
CAES still seems necessary, but it requires the design of the process condensate price of 73 $/bbl.
operation and energy analysis. It is crucial to emphasize that the flared LPG at the SP1 ELR1 station
SONATRACH supported our research on the process development of will inevitably require combustion. While previous studies have
the PV-based electrical energy production system with CAES integrated explored CAES and its potential as an energy storage system, SONA
into LPG SP1 ELR1 SONATRACH pumping station with thermal energy TARCH’s high-scale energy demand leads to the proposal of the CAES
recovery from flared LPG. This endorsement aligns perfectly with system supported by an available fossil energy source to optimize system
SONATRACH’s future vision as it strives to implement these ground performance, known as the D-CAES system, especially considering the
breaking methods across its entire pumping station network. In addition inevitable flaring of LPG. The D-CAES is compatible with multiple,
to the LPG SP1 ELR1 station, for the RTH region alone, SONATRACH space-consuming, and highly controllable pumping station installations.
operates three serial pumping stations groups (SP1, SP2, and SP3), be As shown in Table 2, it is easy to install and operate when the air
tween each group and other 120 Km and each group having ten similar reservoir is empty, and it can function as a gas turbine, a well-known
pumping stations. Each station of SP1 consumes an input power of 10 to equipment in the SONATRACH industry. Even geological constraints
20 MVA. The pumping stations of SP1 resulted in an electricity bill cost are not challenges for implementing these systems in SONATARCH’s
of approximately 4.13 M$. pumping stations, as the sites are ready for various supply networks.
As part of this support, SONATRACH sponsored our use of the However, as also highlighted in Table 2, the D-CAES, compared to
SONATRACH-licensed ASPEN HYSYS V11 simulator, which is a soft the other systems, A-CAES with and without TER and I-CAES, exhibits
ware package used for modeling and simulating industrial processes. the lowest efficiency of 54 % due to thermal loss, referring to the sig
The acquisition cost of this software for 49 users within the company is nificant dissipation of energy as heat during the charging period, leading
estimated to be 295.3 K$ in 2021. Notably, SONATRACH established an to substantial energy wastage. In A-CAES and I-CAES systems, the heat
implementation committee in 2016 for the ASPEN ONE ENGINEERING generated during air compression is recovered and used to preheat the
solution and successfully utilized this software to develop processes for discharged air before the expansion process. On the other hand, the D-
multiple significant hydrocarbon transport projects. CAES relies on burning fossil fuels to preheat the high-pressure air
before expansion occurs. Therefore, if we use LPG as the cooling fluid
1.6. Study aim with a temperature of − 15 ◦ C, it can significantly affect the efficiency of
the proposed system, which combines the heat exchange occurring in A-
The success of implementing the CAES system to address unexpected CAES and I-CAES systems with the support of a fossil energy source
power outages in the electrical network prevents SONATRACH from characterizing the D-CAES system.
4
As several methodologies have been proposed in the literature to coupler, with a nominal flow rate of 750 m3/h each.
enhance the round-trip efficiency of CAES systems, with a particular
focus on recovering waste heat from compressors during the charging 3. CAES system integrated to LPG PS1 ELR1
process and turbines during the discharging process [31], it would be
intriguing to extend the findings of these researches to proposed D-CAES The model that we aim to implement in this study is a combination of
system. This analog system could benefit from the flared LPG as heat two energy sources, PV or extracting energy from the electric grid when
exchange fluid to improve overall system efficiency. By exploring such needed, as well as being able to store energy through CAES.
alternatives, this study expects to hold the potential to provide valuable The LPG PS1 ELR1 station with an integrated CAES system consists of
insights for optimizing system performance. four main interconnected parts, the LPG pumping station, PV panels, the
In addition, due to the global demand and continued use of oil and electric grid, and CAES system. The modeled part in this station is, of
gas in the coming decades, there is an urgent need to reduce gas-flaring course, the one related to CAES system, which is generally composed of a
emissions [32]. The recovery of flare gas is of significant importance to compression unit (motors and compressors) powered by PV and or the
industries as it helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and environ electric grid, a pressurized air storage tank, and an expansion unit
mental pollutants while also preventing the loss of hydrocarbons. equipped with turbines and electric generators. The various parts
Various techniques, such as electricity production using gas turbines, described above are related to the electric grid, which is always avail
can be employed to recover and use flare gas efficiently [33]. Flared LPG able and can serve as a backup to cover the loads in case of the absence
as an alternative fuel will significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the oil of solar production or when the energy storage is insufficient. Fig. 1
and gas industry [34]. The gas could be in good use and potentially summarizes the principle of CAES system integrated with LPG PS ELR1
displace other more polluting fuels, such as coal and diesel, that in the presence of PV with or without the electric grid.
generate higher emissions per energy unit [35]. Therefore, this paper
introduces a novel approach by incorporating flared LPG recovery as an 4. CAES system process description
additional energy source to PV and electrical grid and as heat exchange
fluid within the system. It is also significant to extend existing research The behavior resulting from this complex system is difficult to pre
on CAES and provide valuable insights into the system from an energy, dict through analysis alone, which is why a process simulation and
economic, and environmental point of view. As such, the study delves calculation of the different parameters of the CAES system was devel
into a system analysis that concentrates on optimizing the power gen oped by using ASPEN HYSYS V11 software for the three modes
eration process, conducting comparative electricity expenses and energy mentioned above: without ATER, with ATER, and with LPG-TER. The
savings, and assessing the system’s environmental impact. This analysis working fluid in the CAES process is ambient air. The 4.5 MW power
encompasses the system’s generalizability within SONATRACH pump supply provided by PV or the electrical grid is allocated to power the
ing stations and beyond SONATRACH. three compressors in series, each with a capacity of 1.5 MW. This en
The pumping station selected for the study is LPG PS1 ELR1, pri ables the air flow rate to be drawn in at ambient temperature and at
marily because it featured electric pumps and the flared LPG. Thus, the mospheric pressure, ranging from 20 m3/h to 140 m3/h. The ambient
paper includes the first study of the PV and electrical grid-assisted CAES considered temperature is from − 5◦ C to + 55 ◦ C, covering the temper
system process integrated into the SONATRACH LPG SP1 ELR1 pumping ature variation at the SP1 GLP ELR1 site throughout the year. The re
station to achieve electrical independence combined with a novel pro covery of energy stored in the compressed air is through its expansion by
posed energy derived from the flared LPG recovery, also used as heat the turbo-expanders, which drive generators for electricity production.
exchange fluid in the system process due to its lower temperature. Table B.1 summarizes operating data for the CAES process. Therefore,
As the ASPEN HYSYS simulator had already developed the station’s except for the input to the first compressor, the expected parameters of
processing capabilities and the control of the output power CAES system the working fluid at the inputs and outputs of the process equipment are
should provide insights into the impact of utilizing flared LPG energy unknown and calculated using ASPEN HYSYS V11 software.
and heat exchange process, the study will be through a comprehensive
energy analysis conducted by ASPEN HYSYS simulator in three pro
gressive modes, namely: without air thermal energy recovery (ATER), 4.1. CAES system process without ATER
with ATER, and with LPG thermal energy recovery (LPG-TER).
In this case, the CAES system consists of three parts, as shown in
2. LPG SP1 ELR1 process description Fig. 2, a compression unit, a compressed air storage tank, and an
expansion unit. The compression unit comprises three compressors
The LPG SP1 ELR1 station built by the ABB and SARPI companies (CP1, CP2, and CP3) in series, driven by a total power of 4.5 MW.
involves a significant investment of 19.1 M$. Its implementation was in Moisture separators (SEP1 and SEP2) are installed between the com
the central zone of Hassi Messaoud, Algeria, 7 km northwest of RTH and pressors to separate water droplets condensed during air compression.
connected to the 20″ LR1 pipeline (Line 1: Alrar-Hassi R’mel) at 33 km The last compressor, CP3, discharges into a compressed air storage tank
from the reference kilometer point through a bypass line downstream of (AST).
sectioning post #25. LPG SP1 ELR1 transports the LPG from the Hassi The AST, in turn, supplies the expansion unit, which represents the
Messaoud field to Hassi R’mel field through the 336 km long 24″ ELR1 unloading part. The expansion unit consists of a high-pressure turbo-
pipeline and the 20″ LR1 pipeline to pumping station #2 and then to expander (TEXP1) and a low-pressure turbo-expander (TEXP2) with a
pumping station #4 through the 24″ pipeline. Furthermore, LPG SP1 polytropic efficiency of 80 %. TEXP1 operates at an inlet pressure
ELR1 is designed to be operated with both LR1 and ELR1 pipeline fa ranging from 100 bar up to an outlet pressure of 1 bar. The discharge of
cilities and has a pumping capacity of 11 MTA, divided as follows: 6.5 TEXP2 is at ambient pressure.
MTA (1550 m3/h) on the ELR1 pipeline facility and 4.5 MTA (1050 m3/ Tables B.2–B.7 summarize the equipment specifications of the CAES
h) on the LR1 pipeline facility [2]. SONELGAZ provides the electrical system along with the operating conditions and performance parame
network to power LPG SP1 ELR1 and meets its electricity demands, ters. The specification of input parameters categorized into three types is
which totals 4.5 MW [3]. “Input data”, which remains constant throughout the simulation;
On the other hand, LPG SP1 ELR1 is an intermediate station between “Calculated data” predicted by ASPEN HYSYS software using varying
Rhourde Nouss and SP2-Ouargla stations. It consists of five groups of input data such as airflow and ambient temperature; and “Selected data”
seven-stage electric pumps mounted in parallel, each coupled with an included in the simulation process by selecting checkboxes in the soft
ABB electric motor of 1775 kW at 2915 RPM through a hydraulic ware interface.
5
Fig. 1. LPG PS1 ELR1 station with an integrated CAES system.
Fig. 2. Flowchart process of CAES system without ATER.
4.2. CAES system process with ATER exploiting the flared LPG as the cooling fluid in the heat exchangers due
to its low temperature of − 15 ◦ C and as fuel for the burners that the
Based on the CAES system process presented in the previous sub system became equipped with (Fig. 4). Tables B.8 and B.9 show the
section, exchanging heat between compressed air and expanded air was measured gas flow rate for the flares.
proposed by integrating heat exchangers to cool the compressed air, The LPG is burned in the burners in the presence of compressed air
which increases the storage density, and to heat the expanded air, which from AST to drive the turbo-expander, further increasing its efficiency.
increases the turbo-expander efficiency. Table B.6 summarizes the Table B.7 summarizes the specifications of the burners integrated into
characteristics of the equipment added to the CAES system with ATER the CAES system process with LPG-TER.
(Fig. 3) compared to the CAES system without ATER, particularly the
heat exchangers. 5. CAES systems process simulation
Aspen HYSYS V11 software provides enhanced state equations and

4.3. CAES system process with LPG-TER
activity models that are much more empirical in terms of property
predictions in the hydrocarbon industry, added to that other methods
The CAES system with LPG-TER is a CAES system with ATER
6
and models, such as Semi-Empirical Methods, Miscellaneous Special ambient temperature and the volumetric flow rate of the intake air, as
Application Methods, and Vapor Pressure Models. Each equation has its shown in Fig. 5. It increases with decreasing ambient temperature and
inherent limitations, and it is crucial to understand the appropriate increasing the volumetric flow rate of the air. However, changes in
application of each one. Experimental data for activity model parame airflow rate affect power output more than the variation in ambient
ters are tailored to a specific range, making them less reliable for temperature despite being considered over a range that spans the entire
generalized applications. year. The output power can jump by more than 2 MW between the
In the Appendix A, we discuss the applied property methods and minimum and maximum flow rates of the studied interval and varies by
calculations using Aspen HYSYS software, which have been reported in a maximum of around 0.75 MW between the minimum and maximum
detail by HYSYS Manual [36] and the literature [37–58]. ambient temperatures in the studied interval. This power variation is
due to the evolution of the air state parameters during the compression
6. Results and expansion phases, such as temperature, compression ratio, and mass
density.
As highlighted in the introduction, the targeted objective of this Consequently, it is crucial to understand the evolution of air state
study is to control the power output of the CAES system proposed for the parameters throughout the process, especially pressure and tempera
LPG PS1 ELR1 pumping station based on the recovery of thermal energy ture, which directly affect the final power output. Figs. 6–8 illustrate the
and the use of flared LPG as an energy source. The ASPEN HYSYS soft fluctuation of air state parameters throughout the CAES system without
ware has demonstrated its ability to simulate processes in the oil and gas the ATER process. Pressure and temperature are proportionally affected
industry for transportation projects mandated and sponsored by by each other, with their maximum values achieved at minimal airflow
SONATRACH. All the findings presented in this section depend on the rates and ambient temperatures. During the compression phase
outcomes generated by this software. (charging), the pressure increases, leading to a corresponding increase
The power under control is that produced from the compressed air in temperature. Conversely, during the expansion phase (discharging),
through the Turbo-Expanders. Two parameters affect the energy to be the pressure decreases, leading to a corresponding decrease in
stored, the intake airflow rate influenced by the ambient temperature temperature.
and the pressure achieved by the air due to compression. The pressure is Based on these results, a CAES with heat recovery exchangers could
a function of the flow rate and the power supply according to the enhance the cooling of the compressed air by exchanging heat between
manufacturer’s curves. The power supplied to each compressor is con the charging (compression) and discharging (expansion) phases to warm
stant and equals 1.5 MW, so the pressure and airflow rates determine the up the air expanded. Cooling the compressed air at the compressor level
generated power by the CAES system. The reason for studying the increases the air density while warming up the expanded air increases
storage operation simultaneously with the discharge is to compare the the turbo-expander efficiency.
power generated by the CAES system with that expended. The control of
the output power CAES system should provide insights into the impact of 6.2. Integration of heat exchangers and flared LPG
utilizing flared LPG energy and the heat exchange process. Thus, the
study will be through a comprehensive energy analysis in three pro To improve the performance of the CAES system without ATER, the
gressive modes: without ATER, with ATER, and with LPG-TER, based on heat exchangers with and without the flared LPG have been proposed to
input parameters, especially the intake airflow rate and the ambient release excess heat at the compression stage and add another amount of
temperature. heat at the expansion stage. According to the results discussed in the
subsection above, we expect a significant heat exchange, such that the
6.1. Output power of CAES system without ATER temperature variation affects the compression/expansion ratio and air
density. The present section discusses this case by comparing the two
Fig. 5 displays the output power generated by the CAES system CAES processes, ATER and LPG-TER, to the basic CAES system process
without ATER as a function of the intake airflow rate and the ambient without ATER.
temperature. Due to losses incurred along the process, the delivered Fig. 9 shows a proportional relationship between temperature and
power by the two turbo-expanders is less than the power supplied to the compression ratio and an inverse relationship between temperature and
three compressors, which amounts to 4.5 MW, i.e., 1.5 MW per air density. The effect of temperature on compression ratio and air
compressor. density enabled performance improvement in the CAES system process
The power produced by the CAES system is directly affected by the with ATER and LPG-TER compared to the basic CAES system process
Fig. 3. Flowchart process of CAES system with ATER.
7
Fig. 4. Flowchart process of CAES system with LPG-TER.
Fig. 5. Power output of CAES system without ATER as a function of intake airflow rate and ambient temperature.
without ATER, which is evident in the enthalpy exchange during the ATER, providing evidence that the integrated heat exchange process
expansion phase. The results states that higher temperatures lead to results in higher power output, exceeding the total power input. Addi
higher compression ratios and lower air densities. Furthermore, the ef tionally, it indicates that the system can achieve even great power
fect of temperature on these parameters enables a performance generation under specific conditions, such as varying ambient temper
improvement by incorporating ATER and LPG-TER modes into the CAES ature and airflow rate.
system process.
6.2.2. Output power of CAES system with LPG-TER
6.2.1. Output power of CAES system with ATER On the other hand, flared LPG use as a heat transfer fluid for com
As observed above, the airflow rate can be a parameter to control the pressed air cooling and as a fuel burned in the air supplied to turbo-
generated power, and the effect of temperature on the basic CAES sys expanders results in significant output power compared to other CAES
tem process needs to be improved, which is already part of the objective system modes, with and without ATER. The output power from the
of this work. It involves cooling the compressed air at the compressor turbo-expanders can exceed twice the power supplied to the compres
outlets through electric heat exchangers powered by PVs and heating the sors for minimum flow rates and ambient temperatures, as shown in
expanded air at the turbo-expander outlets through electric heat ex Fig. 12. Comparing the average output power between CAES systems
changers powered by 0.6 MW of electricity from the total energy pro with and without ATER and with LPG-TER (Figs. 13 and 14) reveals a
duced by the generators driven by the turbo-expanders (process shown significant power exchange during the discharging phase. The output
in Fig. 3). power for the CAES system with LPG-TER exceeded 10 MW, surpassing
Fig. 10 depicts the power generated by the CAES system with ATER the input power by more than 100 %, while for the CAES system with
as a function of the airflow rate and ambient temperature. Due to the ATER, the output power exceeded 6 MW, or 13 % more than the input
integrated heat exchange process in the CAES system already explained power. In contrast, the output power for the CAES system without ATER
in section 6.2, the power output of the CAES system with ATER exceeds decreased by 30 % compared to the input power, resulting in a delivery
the total power input of 4.5 MW. Consequently, it can surpass 6 MW at of approximately 3.5 MW (Fig. 15). The findings underscore the note
the minimum temperature and flow rate. This result is attributed to the worthy output power achieved by utilizing flared LPG as both a heat
significant enthalpy exchange in the CAES system with ATER compared transfer fluid and a fuel, surpassing the output power of the other two
to the CAES system without ATER, as shown in Fig. 11. The findings system modes. Furthermore, they highlight the substantial impact of
accurately describe the improved performance of the CAES system with ATER and LPG-TER on power generation compared to that without
8
Fig. 6. Temperature variation along the CAES system process without ATER for different airflow rates and ambient temperatures.
ATER, effectively enhancing the power output in the CAES system. carried out through a structured three-stage study. We initiated by
scrutinizing a fundamental CAES process (CAES without ATER) and then
delved into an enhanced approach (CAES with ATER) previously dis
6.3. Comparison of output powers in CAES systems cussed in the literature, as indicated in Table 2. This improvement
involved the integration of a heat transfer fluid to facilitate highly
As mentioned in the introduction, the increasing demand for large- efficient heat exchange between the compression and the expansion
scale energy by SONATARCH has sparked interest in the CAES system phases.
as a viable solution. Due to its competitive energy capacity compared to The results of the study on CAES with ATER demonstrated that
MW-rated power plants, CAES has become an attractive option. How cooling the air during the compression phase improved compressor ef
ever, this capacity could be further improved by utilizing an available ficiency. However, the compressor efficiency was significantly enhanced
fossil energy source, especially considering the LPG portion inevitably using LPG as the cooling fluid at a temperature of − 15 ◦ C. Similarly,
flared in SONATRACH stations. heating the air during the expansion phase increased the efficiency of
Our research entailed a comprehensive exploration of the de the turbo-expanders. Using LPG as the fuel with a calorific value of 55
velopments in proposed CAES systems with LPG recovery, which we
9
Fig. 7. Pressure variation along CAES system process without ATER for various air flow rates and ambient temperatures.
MJ/kg also considerably improved the efficiency of the turbo- comparison should focus on the possible output power, considering
expanders. similar input powers to those used for the CAES system with LPG-TER,
Thus, the CAES system with LPG-TER fully exploited the potential of ~36 % of total input power from compressed air, ~64 % of total
LPG as both a heat transfer fluid and a fuel, resulting in a significant power from LPG combustion (based on the maximum output power in
increase in generated output power. However, a comparison is necessary Section 6.2.2) and 80 % as turbo-expanders efficiency (see Table B.3), as
to fully evaluate the advanced performance of the proposed system in well as the maximum predicted efficiencies of CAES systems already
contrast to other major CAES systems discussed in the literature. This mentioned in Table 2 and obtained from the literature.
10
Fig. 8. Temperature variation along CAES system process without ATER for different airflow rates.
As shown in Fig. 16, the comparison between the CAES system with making this approach a promising solution to meet the increasing de
LPG-TER and competing systems mentioned in the literature highlights mand for large-scale energy by SONATARCH and other companies in the
the benefit of the present study. Indeed, the proposed system displays a energy industry. These findings pave the way for practical applications
significant superiority in terms of output power: it exhibits a 32 % and future opportunities to fully exploit the potential of LPG for energy
improvement compared to the D-CAES system, a 55 % increase storage and power generation.
compared to the I-CAES system, and a remarkable 66 % and 68 % in
crease compared to the A-CAES system with TES and without TES, 7. Power process optimization
respectively. These results indicate that the CAES system with LPG-TER
offers a distinct advantage in terms of energy performance compared to A PV power plant already implemented at the SP2 RTH SONATRACH
existing systems in the literature. This considerable advancement con site, a pumping station similar to SP1 ELR1 RTH SONATRACH. The
firms the substantial potential of LPG as a heat transfer fluid and fuel in maximum power point (MPP) for the electric pump groups is 3.8 MW to
the context of CAES. It also convincingly demonstrates that integrating ensure a transported LPG flow rate of 1550 m3/h, and the auxiliary loads
LPG into the CAES system significantly enhances its performance, are estimated to be 500 KVA. The study followed the following steps:
11
Fig. 9. Variation of temperature, compression ratio, and air density during the compression phase for three CAES system processes. without ATER, with ATER, and
with LPG-TER (Tamb = 5 ◦ C and AF = 20 m3/h).
selection of solar panels, choice of the inverter, choice of a step-up SP2 RTH SONATRACH site, where each PV panel measures 195.6 cm in
transformer, solar data selection for the site, simulation of solar panel length and 99.2 cm in width (see Table 3), each part of the PV field
operation, and simulation of optimal power operation for the consists of 5478 solar panels arranged in series in 11 rows, with 498 in
installation. parallel to achieve a generated power of 4.5 MW. Three factors are taken
The field of PV panels intended for the SP1 ELR1 pumping station into account to determine the optimal size of the PV system composed of
with the CAES system needs to provide a total power of 9 MW, divided these two parts:
into two parts. One part of 4.5 MW is to supply power to the LPG electric
pump groups, with an MPP of 3.8 MW. The other part of 4.5 MW is • Energy demand: The LPG pumping station has an average electricity
dedicated to the CAES system, providing the stored energy necessary for demand of 9 MW.
the station’s continuous operation. • Solar resource: Local solar data and site-specific analysis revealed an
Based on the characteristics of the PV system already selected for the average daily solar irradiation of 5 kWh/m2.
12
Fig. 10. Output power of CAES system with ATER versus airflow rate and ambient temperature.
Fig. 11. Enthalpy exchange during the expansion and compression phases for two CAES processes. without ATER and with ATER (Tamb = 5 ◦ C and AF = 20 m3/h).
Fig. 12. Output power of CAES system with LPG-TER versus airflow rate and ambient temperature.
• Capacity factor: A considered PV capacity factor of 17 %. PV system capacity = Average daily energy demand/(PV capacity
factor × Solar irradiation) = 216,000 kWh/(0.17 × 5 kWh/m2) =
Based on this data, the optimal size calculation of the PV system is as 254,000 m2 = 25.4 ha.
follows: Therefore, the optimal size of the PV system would be approximately
Average daily energy demand = 9 MW × 24 h × 1000 = 216,000 254,000 m2, where Table 3 presents the detailed data for one part of the
kWh. PV system capable of generating a power of 4.5 MW.
13
Fig. 13. Average output power versus airflow rate and ambient temperature for two CAES system modes: with ATER and with LPG-TER.
As depicted in the diagram in Fig. 1, this project aims to implement a system efficiency due to a solar irradiation decrease, the CAES system
model that combines three energy sources: PV solar energy, grid energy, takes priority, followed by the grid.
and a CAES system. The grid serves as a backup power supply in case However, it is crucial to ensure efficient energy management by the
solar production low or absent, and the energy stored in CAES is power supply process control. In this context, a study supported by
insufficient, or when both systems are out of order. If all three energy SONATRACH is currently underway. Additionally, from the available
sources are present, the electricity import/export program primarily literature, we can mention a proposed numerical model by Argyrou et al.
depends on the state of the PV system, which is considered a priority [59] as an example introducing an algorithm developed in MATLAB/
over the CAES system and the grid. In the event of a decrease in PV Simulink that enables tracking of the maximum power point (MPPT) and
14
Fig. 14. Enthalpy exchange during the expansion and compression phase for three CAES system modes: without ATER, with ATER, and with LPG-TER (Tamb = 5 ◦ C
and AF = 20 m3/h).
Fig. 15. Comparison of the total output power between the three CAES system modes: without ATER, with ATER, and with LPG-TER (Tamb = 5 ◦ C and AF = 20
m3/h).
determining the maximal power for the operation of the PV system varies depending on the time of day, with higher prices during peak
during variations in solar irradiation and ambient temperature. The hours and lower prices during off-peak hours. This tariff structure en
proposed model is ready for implementation with energy storage, which courages increased electricity usage during off-peak hours when prices
can provide power and voltage regulation, reduce consumption peaks, are lower and reduces consumption during peak hours when prices are
and ensure backup power in case of one electrical energy source failure. higher.
Furthermore, the electrical grid offers hourly tariffs, with different
prices for peak and off-peak hours. It means that the cost of electricity
15
Fig. 16. Comparison of maximum output power between CAES System with LPG-TER and competing systems in the literature at the same input power.
maintenance, the electrical network incurs additional charges to

Table 3 compensate for the lack of electricity. However, even if the imple
Detailed PV system part data for 4.5 MW.
mentation cost of the CAES system is high compared to using the power
PV Panel Information Module Characteristics Pv Panel Array (Total) grid, the losses incurred from power cuts supplied by the electrical grid
• Manufacturer: • Length: 195.6 cm • Efficiency: 14 % are significant in terms of LPG, crude oil, and condensate sales losses.
SUNTECH • Width: 99.2 cm • Delta VOC IRRAD: 0.045 Furthermore, this situation puts SONATRACH in an unfavorable posi
• Model: STP280- • Depth: 5 cm • Number of Panels: 5478 tion regarding contractual obligations towards customers. Hence, it is
24/VD.STP275- Size: 280 cm2 (11 rows in series, each
crucial to prioritize at least covering the annual electricity bill, which
•
24/VD • VDC: 600 with 498 panels in
• Type: Poly- • Power: 282.5 W parallel) amounts to approximately 391.6 K$ per year for the SP1 ELR1 station
Crystalline F (Irradiance: 1000 W/m2 • Fill Factor: 76.58 % alone.
CELES 72 and Temperature: • Volts.DC: 402.05 Following an approximate estimation (Tables 4 and 5), the invest
25 ◦ C) • KW.DC: 1548
ment cost of the CAES system powered by PV panels proposed for
• Amps. Dc: 3849.54
Inverters Transformer Generation Category/ SONATRACH is about 5.45 M$/yr, representing 70 % compared to the
Characteristics Characteristics Design investment and operation cost of a natural gas-based electricity network
• DC: 5 MW, 402.05 • Power: 4.5 MVA • For irradiance: 2353 W/ provided by SONELGAZ at a cost borne by SONATRACH, which is
V • Liquid-fill according to m2, ambient temperature: approximately 7.67 M$/yr. The estimation revealed that power grid
• AC: 4.5 MVA, 0.4 IEC standard at a 23 ◦ C and panel
kV temperature of 65 ◦ C temperature: 96.5 ◦ C,
independence through the CAES system integration into the LPG SP1
• Voltage: 0.4–5.5 kV Maximum Power Point ELR1 pumping station resulted in annual capital and operating cost
(MPP): 3803.32 KW savings of 2.22 M$/yr or an equivalent financial gain of 30 % annually
• Load: 500 KVA compared to the investment and operation cost of the electricity
network, representing financial saving more than five times the annual
billed consumption. However, the CAES system with LPG-TER generates
8. Comparative analysis of electricity expenses
electrical power that exceeds the needs of the pumping station by two
times, allowing thinking about the export of the excess electrical load to
It is worth mentioning that the connection to the electrical grid is
the electrical network or another station.
derived from two main tapping lines of 220 KV, Hassi Messaoud-
Touggourt and West-central Hassi Messaoud, at distances of approxi
mately 25 km and 60 km, respectively. These lines supply to the 220/30 9. Environmental impact of the system
KV-2×50 MV main transformers that supply power to the 10–20 MVA/
30 & 5.5 KV transformers at the input of each pumping station. Main Overall, while the electrical network using natural gas as an energy
transformers are at varying distances from half a kilometer to one km source may have a lower carbon footprint due to the cleaner nature of
from pumping stations. Unfortunately, SONATRACH is responsible for natural gas, the CAES system utilizing flared LPG offers the advantage of
this network, including its implementation, crews, maintenance, and reducing flaring emissions and maximizing energy efficiency. The
monitoring, which constitutes a burden added to its main tasks. choice between the two systems in terms of environmental impact
On the other hand, unexpected power outages from the electrical should consider factors such as the availability of fuel, the extent of
grid require an emergency power plant at the pumping station. This flaring activities, and the specific environmental goals and regulations in
installation ensures the supply of electricity necessary for several critical place.
functions, including the lubrication process of the rotating machines, the
operation of the telecommunications network, and the monitoring of the 9.1. LPG impact in front of natural gas
station and the fire network. In the case of unexpected power outages
from the electrical grid, SONATRACH incurs a significant loss in its share The combustion of LPG typically emits approximately 0.24 kg of CO2
of pumped fuel sales. This loss is estimated at 1600 m3/h of LPG for SP1 per 01 kWh of energy generated from LPG burned. The emission factor
ELR1 station alone, resulting in a daily financial loss of 105.6 K$/h, for CO2 from natural gas combustion is generally around 0.23 kg of CO2
assuming an LPG price of 0.066 $/l. These unexpected power outages per 01 kWh of energy generated from natural gas burned [60]. This
can occur multiple times during the year and may last up to a week each emission factor can vary slightly depending on the specific composition
time, especially in the summer. of the LPG and natural gas and other factors, but providing a general
In addition to fixed costs of the CAES system, represented by the estimate of the CO2 emissions associated with the combustion process.
equipment purchase price, electricity expenses include cumulative costs Based on the discussed data, the following is a CO2 emissions compar
over the 30-year project lifespan, consisting of maintenance and ison between the electricity grid powered solely by natural gas and the
downtime costs. In the event of a shutdown of the CAES system for CAES system utilizing a portion of energy from LPG.
16
Table 4
Cost analysis of dependence on the electricity grid from a fossil energy source.
Component Description Capacity Quantity Unit Total Price
Price
Fixed costs throughout the 30-year project lifespan

Electrical network Connection to the SONELGAZ electricity network at the 220 KV 130 km 148 K 19.24 M$
expense of Sonatrach $/km (Including the equipment
purchase price, the flat rate of 24
% of the total cost amounts to 4.62
M$)
Transformer Transformer at the expense of SONATRACH 30 KV Output 02 890 K$ 3.56 M$
5.5 KV Output 02
Emergency power Storage Batteries with charger 12/125 V 200 to / 185 K$
plant Operation from 5 min to 6 h 600
Gas Turbine Generator 2 MW/5.5KV 02 2.22 M 4.44 M$
$
Diesel Generators 500KVA 02 148 K$ 296 K$
400 V
Total purchase price 27.72 M$
Cumulative costs over the 30-year project lifespan
Unforeseen power SONATRACH incurs significant losses in its share of In 2005, a statistic revealed 1600 0.066 177.41 M$
outages from the pumped LPG due to unforeseen power outages from the 10 instances of LPG m3/h $/l (for 10 week/30 yr as a minimum
electrical grid electrical grid. pumping stoppages. estimation)
Maintenance The annual maintenance cost was maximized by aligning it Maintenance is performed 05 436.6 K 13.1 M$/30 yr
with the annual depreciation price, which is determined by every five years. $/yr
dividing the total equipment purchase price by the
project’s lifespan.
Annual billed consumption 11.75 M$/30 yr
(391.6 K$/yr)
Total fluctuations price 202.25 M$/30 yr
Total project cost 229.97 M$/30 yr
Total annual project cost 7.67 M$/yr
Table 5
Cost analysis of electricity grid independence through renewable energy based on the CAES system.
Component Description Capacity Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Fixed costs throughout the 30-year project lifespan

CAES Electric motor 1500 kW 30 20 K$ 60 K$
Compressor 03 2.2 M$ 6.6 M$
Heat exchanger 03 300.0 K$ 900 K$
Storage tank 50000 m3 01 32.5 M$ 32.5 M$
Turbo-Expander 4500 kW 02 2.5 M$ 5 M$
Electric generator 02 20.0 K$ 40 K$
Burner 30 kWh/m3 02 600.0 K$ 1.2 M$
Process pipe 6-18″ 21 % flat rate 9.7 M$ 9.7 M$
of the total cost
PV PV 1000 W 64,000 400 $ 25.6 M$
Total purchase price 81.62 M$
Cumulative costs over the 30-year project lifespan
Maintenance The annual maintenance cost was maximized by aligning it with Maintenance is performed every 05 2.72 M 81.62 M$/30 yr
the annual depreciation price, calculated by dividing the total five years. $/yr
equipment purchase price by the project’s lifespan, excluding PV
and storage tank.
CAES The 45-day maintenance shutdown of the system accounts for The system undergoes a 1.5 32.6 K 163.2 K$/30 yr
shutdown approximately one and a half months of consumption billing. maintenance shutdown of 45 days $/month (1.5 × monthly cost
once every five years. × 05 times during
30 years)
Total fluctuations price 81.79 M$/30 yr
Total project cost 163.41 M$/30 yr
Total annual project cost 5.45 M$/yr
The power supplied to the station by the electricity grid at the and the CAES system amounts to 16,898 tonnes/yr, it is crucial to
transformer input amounts to 4.5 MW (5.7 MW from the source emphasize that LPG at the SP1 ELR1 station will inevitably need to be
considering loss power of 21 %) or 49,932 MWh/yr, resulting in CO2 burned, resulting in a total CO2 emission of 39,866 tonnes/yr from the
emissions of 11,484 tonnes/yr. On the other hand, the maximal power two sources, the CAES system, and the electricity grid. By adopting the
supplied to the CAES system through LPG combustion is the difference CAES system, the station can become independent from the electricity
between the maximum power generated by the CAES system with LPG- grid and effectively reduce significant CO2 emissions associated with
TER (10.08 MW) divided by turbo-expanders efficiency (80 %) and the natural gas combustion used to power the grid, representing approxi
input power to the compressors (4.5 MW), which is approximately 8.1 mately a 29 % reduction in CO2 emissions.
MW (13.5 MW from the source considering burner efficiency of 60 %) or Furthermore, the mean energy contained in natural gas is 12 kWh/
118,260 MWh/yr, leading to CO2 emissions of 28,382 tonnes/yr. kg, and the density of liquefied natural gas ranges from 410–500 kg/m3
Although the difference in CO2 emissions between the electricity grid [60]. Thus, ensuring a power output of 5.7 MW (49,932 MWh/yr) from
17
the electricity grid requires a consumption of 9,145 m3/yr of liquefied 10. System generalizability within SONATRACH pumping
natural gas, costing 3.18 M$, estimated at 347.6 $/m3. Given that stations
SONELGAZ, the electricity producer, is a national company subject to
Algeria’s policy for optimal energy use, as highlighted in the introduc In a study conducted by Petri et al. [62], the findings demonstrated
tion, the CAES system contributes to the Algerian government’s efforts the technical and economic feasibility of using flare gas as fuel for power
to provide more clean energy and revitalize the economy. generation, with an impressive Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 19.32 %
and a Payback Period (PP) of only five years. This approach not only
9.2. Impact of recovered LPG in front of flared LPG enhances the economic value of gas flaring but also represents a sig
nificant step towards achieving a breakthrough in eliminating routine
A recent study [61] examined seven flare gas recovery and utilization flaring, making notable progress toward the goal of Zero Routine
technologies, including compression and reinjection to well, natural gas Flaring.
liquids, gas to liquids, methanol, dimethyl ether production, liquefied Based on the results from Sections 9.1 and 9.2, the CAES system does
natural gas, and power generation using reciprocating internal com not consistently utilize the entire volume of flared LPG, as evidenced by
bustion engine cycle. The study found that power generation using the disparity in CO2 emissions and the projected power generation from
reciprocating internal combustion engines is economically viable. LPG combustion. This assurance stems from the station’s consumption
Furthermore, the calculation of CO2 emissions reveals that the imple requirement. The daily power output of 13.5 MW from LPG fuel (added
mentation of flare gas recovery and utilization technologies can lead to a to the 4.5 MW compressed air power) needed to sustain a maximum
significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Specifically, using these tech power generation of 10.08 MW, considering burner efficiency (60 %)
nologies can result in a CO2 emissions reduction ranging from 50 % to and turbo-expander efficiency (80 %) for the SP1 ERL1 station through
90 % compared to simply flaring the gas through a flare stack. the CAES system with LPG-TER, is almost consistently available. This
LPG is a mixture comprising approximately 38 % propane (C3H8) and
roughly 60 % butane (C4H10) by volume and has a typical specific heat
of 46.1 MJ/kg, and its combustion as fuel emits 3 kg of CO2 for each 1 kg
of burned LPG [60]. Consequently, achieving a 50 % reduction in CO2
emissions through the utilization of the CAES system with LPG-TER
implies that the flaring process of LPG emits 6 kg of CO2 for each 1 kg
of LPG burned. Following the information provided in Table B.8, a
compilation of monthly recordings detailing the critical levels of CO2
emissions from flared and recovered LPG on specific days over the past
three years is presented in Table 6, originating from the LPG SP1 ERL1
station.
Referring to Figs. 17 and 18 (based on Table B.8), it is evident that an
increase in the quantity of burned LPG corresponds to a rise in CO2
emissions from the flaring process. Hence, opting to employ LPG for
electricity generation emerges as a more ecologically responsible choice
compared to the wasteful practice of flaring LPG. This approach pre
vents the squandering of valuable energy resources and leads to a lower
emissions of CO2 per unit of usable energy generated. Efficient conver
sion of LPG into electricity (with a specific power of 12.3 kWh/kg [60]
× 60 % burner efficiency × 80 % turbo-expander efficiency) signifi
Fig. 17. Comparison of anticipated CO2 emissions between flared and recov
cantly curtails CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced. In contrast,
ered LPG for monthly critical days at the LPG SP1 ERL1 station over the past
the flaring LPG releases CO2 and other greenhouse gases directly into the
three years (2020–2022).
atmosphere, offering no practical energy capture.
Table 6
LPG CO2 emissions per monthly critical days from the LPG SP1 ERL1 station for the last three years (2020–2022).
Month LPG CO2 emissions (tonnes/day)1
2020 2021 2022
Flared LPG2 Recovered LPG3 Flared LPG Recovered LPG Flared LPG Recovered LPG
January 428.40 214.20 134.64 67.32 85.68 42.84

February 214.20 107.10 113.22 56.61 214.20 107.10
March 765.00 382.50 76.50 38.25 64.26 32.13
April 214.20 107.10 214.20 107.10 110.16 55.08
May 61.20 30.60 214.20 107.10 82.62 41.31
June 61.20 30.60 214.20 107.10 122.40 61.20
July 1683.00 841.50 153.00 76.50 153.00 76.50
August 94.86 47.43 153.00 76.50 128.52 64.26
September 94.86 47.43 428.40 214.20 287.64 143.82
October 244.80 122.40 214.20 107.10 183.60 91.80
November 214.20 107.10 428.40 214.20 122.40 61.20
December 765.00 382.50 183.60 91.80 107.10 53.55
Average 403.41 201.71 210.63 105.32 138.47 69.23
Total/yr4 147244.65 73622.33 76879.95 38439.98 50539.73 25269.86
1
1 m3 of LPG ≈ 510 kg.
2
1 kg of flared LPG emits 6 kg of CO2.
3
1 kg of recovered LPG emits 3 kg of CO2.
4
Average × 365 days.
18
Fig. 18. Projected output power from recovered LPG during monthly critical days at the LPG SP1 ERL1 station over the last three years (2020–2022).
assertion was based on Table B.9, depicting flared gas limits. the SP1 ELR1 station. However, estimating CO2 emissions is done by
While Figs. 17 and 18 illustrate varying distinctions in flaring and considering the SP1 ELR1 station as a reference. In this context, about
recovery across different critical production days, this variability arises CO2 emissions, the stations are categorized into three groups based on
from the station’s shutdown on these days due to anticipated anomalies their transporting pipelines: LZ, LR1, and ELR1.
based on the flared amount of LPG, which must not fall below or exceed Based on the analysis above and the calculation results presented in
certain limits, where the upper limit of which was given by Table B.9. Table 7, which serve as foundational data for the outcomes in Table 8,
Despite these factors, according to the results presented in Fig. 18, the the generalizability of CAES technology with LPG-TER within SONA
average potential daily power derived from LPG recovery is approxi TRACH pumping stations can lead to a CO2 emissions reduction of
mately 21.42 MW, with a maximum of 56.36 MW and a minimum of approximately 22.17 %, equivalent to around 29 MTA (reducing CO2
10.19 MW. In contrast, under normal station operating conditions, this emissions by 50 % using CAES system (Section 9.2)). This reduction
power can range between 18 and 26 MW (LPG flaring is around 70–100 could reach 50 % by fully recovering flared LPG, where the studied CAES
m3/day), depending on the availability of LPG. Therefore, the maximum system currently recovers a maximum of 43.33 % flared LPG (max LPG
power requirement of 13.5 MW for the burners supplied by LPG fuel is recovery by CAES system/limited LPG flaring). Furthermore, the total
reliably assured. power output achievable for the 10 LPG pumping stations by the CAES
Furthermore, considering the recovery of heat lost during the system is around 3679 MW/yr.
compression phase (charging) to the expansion phase (discharging), the
power supplied by the compressed air is considered to be the same as 11. Technology generalizability beyond SONATRACH
that delivered to the compressors, amounting to 4.5 MW. This way,
without factoring in equipment efficiencies (burners and turbo- Despite the gas flaring being wasteful and polluting, it provides a
expanders), the total input power to the CAES system with LPG-TER is relatively safe way to dispose of excess gas, preventing explosions in
18 MW, which already represents the minimum attainable power sup terms of safety-wise and uncontrollable fires caused by sudden pressure
plied by the recovered LPG when the station operates under normal variations. It is economically challenging to capture and transport
conditions, with the SP1 ERL1 station requiring only 13.5 MW for the associated gas for commercial and technical limitations, added to ge
proposed CAES system. The remaining untapped LPG power, ranging ology hindering re-injection into reservoirs and regulatory barriers that
from 4.5 MW to 21.5 MW, equivalent to 17 m3 to 82 m3 of flared LPG, may prevent companies from utilizing the gas or impose ineffective
presents an opportunity for fully harnessing the potential of the flared penalties for flaring. This situation caused a total volume of flaring
LPG. This realization opens the door to expanding the CAES system’s worldwide in 2022 of 139 bcm for associated gas alone, representing lost
capacity for providing electrical power beyond the station’s immediate sales of 15.90B$ and resulting in over 350 MTA of CO2 equivalent
needs. emissions (CO2e). The estimates show that the top nine largest flaring
The technology generalizability of the CAES system with LPG-TER countries in 2022 were Russia, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Venezuela, the United
within SONATRACH pumping stations can be extended to the three States, Mexico, Libya, and Nigeria. These countries accounted for 74 %
TRC regions: the Hassi R’Mel Transport Region (HRM), the In Amenas of all gas flared and 45 % of global oil production [35].
Transport Region (RTI), and the Haoud El-Hamra Transport Region Although gas flaring varies by source between associated gas, non-
(RTH). These regions encompass 10 LPG pumping stations, distributed associated gas, and gas from the refinery, the exploitation of alone
as follows: 04 stations for HRM, 02 stations for RTI, and 04 stations for associated flared gas by D-CAES (~36 % of total input power from
RTH. Table 7 outlines the terminology of each station, LPG flaring limits, compressed air, ~64 % of total input power from LPG combustion, and
and the maximum amount of recoverable LPG through the CAES system. 54 % as system efficiency) can generate approximately 770 TWh
Based on the LPG transporting pipelines, namely LZ1 and LZ2 with a (calorific value of natural gas: ~11 kWh/m3 with 60 % as burners ef
diameter of 12″, LR1 with a diameter of 20″, and ELR1 with a diameter of ficiency), whereas the equivalent volume of non-associated gas flaring,
24″, the pumping flow varies 700 m3/h for LZ1 and LZ2, 900 m3/h for such as LPG, results in a potential power generation of up to 1821 TWh
LR1, and 1600 m3/h for ELR1, the latter of which also serves as the (calorific value of LPG: ~26 kWh/m3). Using CAES with LPG-TER (with
transporting pipeline for the SP1 ELR1 station, the focus of this study as 80 % as system efficiency), this figure can reach around 2698 TWh. The
a prototype. Generally, all stations require the same power supplied to difference in power generation between the more efficient CAES with
19
Table 7
SONATRACH LPG pumping stations production for TRC Regions.
Pipelines Region of Transport LPG pumping station Produced LPG Limited LPG flaring Max LPG recovery by CAES system Min LPG not recovered
(RT) (m3/h) (m3/day) (m3/day)1 (m3/day)
LZ1 + LZ2 HRM (Hassi R’Mel) SP1 LZ2-12″ 700 100 51.65 48.35
SP1 LZ1-12″ 700 100 51.65 48.35
SP2 Milok LZ1-12″ 700 100 51.65 48.35
SP2 Milok LZ2-12″ 700 100 51.65 48.35
LR1 + RTI (In Amenas) SP Rourd Nouss LR1- 900 144 51.65 92.35
ELR1 20″
SP Rourd Nouss 1600 120 51.65 68.35
ELR1-24″
RTH (Haoud El- SP1 LR1-20″ 900 144 51.65 92.35
Hamra) SP2 LR1-20″ 900 144 51.65 92.35
SP1 ELR1-24″ 1600 120 51.65 68.35
SP2 ELR1-24″ 1600 120 51.65 68.35
Average 1030 119.2 51.65 67.55
1
Producing 13.5 MW needs 51.65 m3 of LPG (LPG specific power of 12.3 kWh/kg and 1 m3 of LPG ≈ 510 kg).
Table 8
Estimated CO2 emissions and produced power from LPG in SONATRACH LPG pumping stations for TRC regions.
LPG pumping CO2 emissions from CO2 emissions from LPG CO2 emissions from LPG CO2 emissions Max produced power Max power supplied by
station LPG flaring (tonnes/ recovery (tonnes/day)2 not recovered (tonnes/ reduction (%)3 (MW/day)4 burner (MW/day)5
day)1 day)1
SP1 LZ2-12″ 306.00 79.02 147.95 25.83 13.50 8.1

SP1 LZ1-12″ 306.00 79.02 147.95 25.83 13.50 8.1
SP2 Milok LZ1- 306.00 79.02 147.95 25.83 13.50 8.1
12″
SP2 Milok LZ2- 306.00 79.02 147.95 25.83 13.50 8.1
12″
SP Rourd Nouss 440.64 79.02 282.59 17.93 13.50 8.1
LR1-20″
SP Rourd Nouss 367.20 79.02 209.15 21.52 13.50 8.1
ELR1-24″
SP1 LR1-20″ 440.64 79.02 282.59 17.93 13.50 8.1
SP2 LR1-20″ 440.64 79.02 282.59 17.93 13.50 8.1
SP1 ELR1-24″ 367.20 79.02 209.15 21.52 13.50 8.1
SP2 ELR1-24″ 367.20 79.02 209.15 21.52 13.50 8.1
Average 364.75 79.02 206.70 22.17 13.50 8.1
Total/yr6 133 MTA 29 MTA 75 MTA 22.17 %/yr 4927.50 MW/yr 2956.5 MW/yr
1
Flaring process of LPG emits 6 kg of CO2 for each 1 kg of LPG burned (1 m3 of LPG ≈ 510 kg).
2
LPG as fuel emits 3 kg of CO2 for each 1 kg of burned LPG
3
(2 × CO2 emissions from LPG recovery)/(CO2 emissions from LPG flaring). Reducing CO2 emissions by 50 % using CAES (Section 9.2).
4
Max LPG recovery of 51.65 m3/day × 510 kg/m3 × 12.3 kWh/kg/24 h (day) = 13500 kW = 13.5 MW.
5
60 % burner efficiency.
6
MTA: Million Tonnes per Annum.
LPG-TER and the D-CAES is that LPG operates as the working fluid to 12. Conclusion
exchange heat between the charging and discharging phases. The CAES
with LPG-TER can be adopted by countries producers of LPG, particu As stated in the introduction, the main objective of this study is to
larly among relevant industrial companies. Based on Tables 3 and B.9, control the output power of the proposed CAES system for the LPG PS1
the estimated percentage of flared LPG is approximately 0.3 % of the ELR1 station based on the recovery of thermal energy and the use of
total production. Table 9 presents 15 selected countries as LPG pro flared LPG as an energy source. Since the input power supplied to the
ducers, flared-LPG estimates, and savings power by adapting the CAES compressors is constant, which is 4.5 MW in total, at a rate of 1.5 MW
system with LPG-TER in the relevant industrials companies. per compressor, the air pressure and flow rates reflect the power stored
Fig. 19 clearly illustrates the energy efficiency potential of the CAES or generated by the CAES system. Therefore, the study examined the
system with LPG-TER when adopted by the oil industry in LPG- storage and discharge operations simultaneously.
producing countries. Even countries with lower LPG production, like Due to energy losses along the basic CAES system process without
Libya for instance, could achieve substantial savings of approximately ATER, the maximum power output from turbo-expanders is less than the
100 MW/day by implementing the CAES system with LPG-TER, while power supplied to the compressors. To improve the performance of the
simultaneously recovering 5.28 bbl/day of flared LPG. On the other CAES system without ATER, the use of LPG and heat exchangers inte
hand, for major LPG producers like China, the benefits could be signif grated into the process has been proposed to release excess heat during
icantly greater, with potential savings of around 42400 MW/day by the compression phase and add additional heat during the expansion
recovering 2329.5 bbl/day of flared LPG. The successful implementation phase. This improvement was clear by comparing the two CAES system
of this technology has the potential to make a profound impact on modes, with ATER and with LPG-TER, to the basic CAES system process
curbing energy losses and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in these without ATER. Due to the heat exchange integrated into the process, the
nations. power delivered by the CAES system with ATER exceeds the total power
supply of 4.5 MW.
On the other hand, by exploiting flared LPG as a heat transfer fluid
20
Table 9
Flared-LPG estimates and power savings by adapting the CAES system with LPG-TER for selected LPG-producing countries worldwide.
N◦ Country Produced LPG1 [63] (×1000 Flared LPG2 (×1000 Burners power3 Compressed air power4 Max power from CAES with LPG-TER5
bbl/day) bbl/day) (MW/day) (MW/day) (MW/day)
1 China 776.52 2.32956 34,083 18,923 42,405

2 USA 648 1.944 28,442 15,791 35,386
3 Russia 587.58 1.76274 25,790 14,319 32,087
4 India 312.72 0.93816 13,726 7621 17,077
5 Iran 65.06 0.19518 2856 1585 3553
6 Saudi 44.3 0.1329 1944 1080 2419
Arabia
7 Canada 41.16 0.12348 1807 1003 2248
8 UA 29.6 0.0888 1299 721 1616
Emirates
9 Mexico 26.26 0.07878 1153 640 1434
10 Algeria 25.55 0.07665 1121 623 1395
11 Qatar 11.89 0.03567 522 290 649
12 Venezuela 6.79 0.02037 298 165 371
13 Iraq 5.26 0.01578 231 128 287
14 Nigeria 2.39 0.00717 105 58 131
15 Libya 1.76 0.00528 77 43 96
Total 141154.2
1
2014 data.
2
0.3 % produced LPG.
3
6.39 kWh/l × 60 % as burners efficiency (Table B.7) representing ~ 64 % from of input power (based on the max output power in Section 6.2.2).
4
~36 % of total input power (based on the max output power in Section 6.2.2).
5
80 % as turbo-expanders efficiency (Table B.3).
Fig. 19. Power savings by adapting the CAES system with LPG-TER for selected LPG-producing countries worldwide.
for cooling compressed air and as a fuel burned in the air supplied to the compared to the I-CAES system, and a remarkable 66 % and 68 % in
turbo-expanders, significant power is delivered compared to other CAES crease compared to the A-CAES system with TES and without TES,
system modes, with and without ATER. The output power from the respectively.
turbo-expanders can reach more than twice the power supplied to the Furthermore, an approximate estimation of expenses revealed that
compressors at minimal ambient temperatures and flow rates, with an the investment cost of the proposed CAES system powered by PV panels
increase of more than 100 % compared to the input power or an output in favor of SONATRACH is around 5.45 M$/yr, representing 70 %
exceeding 10 MW for CAES system with LPG-TER, and 13 % compared compared to the investment and exploiting cost of a natural gas elec
to the input power with an output exceeding 6 MW for CAES system with tricity grid provided by SONELGAZ and at the expense of SONATRACH,
ATER. While for the CAES system without ATER, the output power was which is approximately 7.67 M$/yr, almost a financial loss equivalent to
decreased by 30 %, with the delivery of around 3.5 MW compared to the 2.22 M$ annually. Therefore, it concludes that the independence of the
input power. The comparison between the CAES system with LPG-TER electricity grid through the CAES system integration in the LPG SP1
and competing systems mentioned in the literature highlights the ELR1 pumping station results in annual investment and exploiting cost
benefit of the present study. Indeed, the proposed system displays a savings of 30 % of the investment and operation cost of the electricity
significant superiority in terms of output power: it exhibits a 32 % network, representing financial savings nearly of three times the annual
improvement compared to the D-CAES system, a 55 % increase consumption. Adopting the CAES system can also significantly reduce
21
CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion to power the grid, resulting of this technology stands to have a profound impact on mitigating en
in a 29 % decrease in combined emissions from LPG and natural gas. ergy losses and reducing greenhouse gas emissions within these
The findings of this study are anticipated to apply to other similar countries.
SONATRACH pumping stations, given the consistency in their processes.
This adaptability aligns with SONATRACH’s future vision, as they aim to
implement these innovative approaches throughout their pumping sta Declaration of Competing Interest
tions network, including 10 LPG pumping stations for the TRC, as shown
in Table 7. This implementation enables a significant power of approx The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
imately 3679 MW/yr and can lead to a CO2 emissions reduction of 22.17 interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
%, equivalent to around 29 million tonnes/yr. the work reported in this paper.
Additionally, the CAES implementation with LPG-TER holds promise
for countries that are significant LPG producers, particularly within Data availability
relevant industrial sectors. Even nations with lower LPG production,
such as Libya, could realize substantial gains, achieving approximate No data was used for the research described in the article.
daily savings of 100 MW through the CAES system with LPG-TER, all
while recovering 5.28 bbl/day of flared LPG. In contrast, for major LPG Acknowledgements
producers like China, the potential advantages could be considerably
more substantial, resulting in power savings of around 42400 MW/day This research was supported by SONATRACH (Société Nationale de
by recovering 2329.5 bbl/day of flared LPG. Successful implementation Transport et de la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures).
Appendix A
The simulation calculations are illustrated logically in a general selection flowchart of models and state equations, as shown in Fig. A.1.
Fig. A1. Aspen HYSYS software flowchart for calculation models selection [64].
To specify the method used for solving the vapor phase, the selection depends on specific considerations of the system. In cases when operating at
moderate and low pressures (less than 5 atm), selecting Ideal Gas Law should be satisfactory for a vapor phase with little intermolecular interaction.
Vapor pressure K value models may be for ideal mixtures at low pressures, including the Modified Antoine, Braun K10, and EssoK packages. The
models may also be for first approximations for non-ideal systems. The Braun K10 model is strictly applicable to heavy hydrocarbon systems at low
pressures, and the Grayson-Streed (GS) [54] correlation, an extension of the Chao-Seader (CS) [55] method, is recommended for simulating heavy
hydrocarbon systems with a high H2 content.
To model non-idealities in the vapor phase, Aspen HYSYS offers the enhanced Peng-Robinson (PR) and Soave Redlich Kwong (SRK) equations of
state. In addition, the software provides several methods, which are modifications of these property packages, including PRSV, Zudkevitch Joffee (ZJ),
and Kabadi Danner (KD). Lee Kesler Plocker (LKP) is a modification of the Lee Kesler equation adapted from the BWR equation for mixtures. Among
these, the PR equation of the state supports the most extensive coverage of operating conditions and systems variety. The PR property package options
22
are PR, Sour PR, and PRSV. The SRK property package options are SRK, Sour SRK, KD, and ZJ.
The PR and SRK equations of state generate all required equilibrium and thermodynamic properties directly and can predict the vapor fugacity
coefficients in conjunction with a liquid activity model. The different activity models supported in the Aspen HYSYS software package are Chien Null,
Non-Random-Two-Liquid (NRTL), Extended and General NRTL, Margules, Universal Quasi Chemical (UNIQUAC), van Laar and Wilson, and others
that are available in the Aspen HYSYS package for calculating the Vapor phase in conjunction with the selected liquid activity model. In addition,
Aspen HYSYS also provides various methods to modify the property packages. Table A.1 and Table A2 show formulations and terms definitions of the
PR and SRK equations of state used in Aspen HYSYS.
Table A1
Formulations of the PR and SRK equations of state.
SRK equation of state PR equation of state

RT a RT a
P = − P = −
V − b V(V + b) V − b V(V + b)
Where: Where:
( ) ( )
Z3 − Z2 + A − B − B2 Z − AB = 0 Z3 − (1 − B)Z2 + A − B − B2 Z − (AB − B2 − B3 ) = 0
∑N ∑N
b = t=1 xi bi b = t=1 xi bi
RTci RTci
bi = 0.08664 bi = 0.077796
Pci Pci
∑N ∑N ( )0.5 ∑N ∑N ( )0.5
a = t=1 j=1 xi xj ai aj (1 − kij ) a = t=1 j=1 xi xj ai aj (1 − kij )
ai = aci αi ai = aci αi
(RTci )2 (RTci )2
aci = 0.42748 aci = 0.457235
Pci Pci
a0.5
i = 1 + mi (1 − T0.5
ri ) a0.5
i = 1 + mi (1 − T0.5
ri )
mi = 0.48 + 1.574ωi + 0.146ω2i mi = 0.37464 + 1.54226ωi + 0.26992ω2i When an acentric factor > 0.49 is present Aspen HYSYS uses following corrected form
0.379642 + (1.48503 − (0.164423 − 1.016666ωi )ωi )ωi
aP aP
A = A =
(RT)2 (RT)2
bP bP
B = B =
RT RT
Table A2
Terms definitions of the PR and SRK equations of state.
For PR equation of state For SRK equation of state

RTci RTci
bi = 0.077796 bi = 0.08664
Pci Pci
ai = aci αi ai = aci αi
(RTci )2 (RTci )2
aci = 0.457235 aci = 0.42748
Pci Pci
√̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅
αi = 1 + mi (1 − Tri0.5 ) αi = 1 + mi (1 − Tri0.5 )
mi = 0.37646 + 1.54226ωi + 0.26992ω2i mi = 0.48 + 1.574ωi + 0.17ω2i
∑ ∑ ( )0.5 ( )
Where: a = Ni=1 Nj=1 xi xJ ai aj 1 − kij
The activity model remains applicable to the selected vapor model (PR or SRK) by requiring binary interaction parameters. The binary coefficient
table of the Fluid Package property view in Aspen HYSYS provides Henry’s Law coefficients as binary interaction parameters. The extended Henry’s
Law equation is utilized in Aspen HYSYS to model interactions between dilute solutes and solvents and takes the following form:
B
lnHij = A + + Cln(T) + DT (A1)
T
Where: i = solute or “non-condensable” component and j = solvent or condensable component.
The Lee-Kesler method is used for liquid and vapor enthalpies and entropies calculations for all vapor pressure models and all components except
for H2O, which is treated separately with the steam property correlation. This method is also adopted and recommended for use by [42,46]. The Gas
enthalpies and entropies depend on the model chosen to represent the vapor phase behavior. For the PR equation of state, the enthalpy and entropy
departure calculations use the following relations:
[ ] ( ( ) )
H − H ID 1 da V + 20.5 + 1 b
= Z − 1 − 1.5 a− T ln ( ) (A2)
RT 2 bRT dt V + 20.5 − 1 b
[ ] ( ( ) )
S − SID P A Tda V + 20.5 + 1 b
= ln(Z − B) − ln ◦ − 1.5 ln ( ) (A3)
R P 2 bRT adt V + 20.5 − 1 b
∑ ∑ ( )0.5 ( )
Where: a = Ni=1 Nj=1 xi xJ ai aj 1 − kij .
For the SRK equation of state:
[ ] ( )
H − H ID 1 da b
= Z− 1− a− T ln 1 + (A4)
RT bRT dt V
23
[ ] ( )
S − SID P A Tda B
= ln(Z − B) − ln ◦ − ln 1 + (A5)
R P B adt Z
For the Ideal Equation of State:
H = H ID (A6)
∫T2
CV dT V2
S = S◦ID = + Rln (A7)
T V1
T1
Fugacity coefficient for the PR equation state:

( ) [ ( ) ] [ ( ) ]
Pb bi a 1 ∑N
( ) bi V + 20.5 + 1 b
ln∅i = − ln z − + (Z − 1) − 1.5 2a0.5
i x a
j j
0.5
1 − Kij − ln ( ) (A8)
RT b 2 bRT a j=1
b V − 20.5 − 1 b
Fugacity coefficient for the SRK equation state:

( ) [ ( ) ] [ ]
Pb bi a 1 ∑N
( ) bi b
ln∅i = − ln z − + (Z − 1) − 2a0.5
i xj a 0.5
j 1 − Kij − ln 1 + (A9)
RT b bRT a j=1
b V
Appendix B
Table B.1 summarizes the operating data for the CAES process. Tables B.2–B.7 provide the equipment specifications of the CAES system, including
the working conditions and performance parameters. Additionally, Tables B.8 and B.9 display the measured gas flow rates for the flares.
Table B1
Operating data of the CAES system process.
Parameter Value Comment
Compressor power 1.5 MW The three compressors of CAES process are supplied by 4.5 MW.
IN CP 1 1 bar Atmospheric inlet of CAES process.
Polytropic Efficiency of CP 80 % Optimal value based on compressor map [65].
Polytropic Efficiency of TEXP 80 %
OUT TEXP 2 1 bar Atmospheric outlet of CAES process.
Tamb − 5◦ C to + 55 ◦ C For whole year.
AF 20 m3/h to 140 m3/h Flow rate limits based on ASPEN HYSYS V11 for compressor power of 1.5 MW.
Table B2
Compressor (CP) data.
Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment
Efficiency Adiabatic Calculated data The Adiabatic and Polytropic efficiencies are included in the Compressor calculations.
efficiency
Polytropic Input data 80 %
efficiency
Power / Input data 1.5 MW
Synchronous / Input data 1800 rpm
speed
Operating mode Centrifugal Selected Used to increase the pressure of an inlet gas stream with relative high capacities and low compression ratios.
Curve input Single-MW Selected To describe the compressor performance as a function of the flowing gas molecular weight.
option
Polytropic Schultz Selected To calculate the polytropic head and efficiency in the compressor
method
Pressure / Calculated These values can be calculated by HYSYS if the inlet pressure and outlet pressures are available from user-specified
difference values.
Pressure ratio / Calculated
Surge limit / Selected (Yes or To perform compressor surge analysis under different emergency scenarios with a recycle, controller, pipes, valves,
analysis Non) and knock out drums included, using very few inputs.
24
Table B3
Turbo-Expander (TEXP) data.
Efficiency Isentropic efficiency Calculated The efficiencies are parts of the Expander calculations, and an isentropic flash is performed as well.
Polytropic efficiency Input data 80 %
Duty / Calculated To calculate the duty of the attached energy stream.
Curve input Multiple inlet guide vane Selected To set curves that describe the expander performance as a function of the inlet guide vane position.
option curves
Pressure specs ΔP Calculated These values can be calculated by HYSYS if the inlet pressure and outlet pressures are available from user-
Pressure ratio Calculated specified values.
Table B4
Air storage tank (AST) data.
Design Tank Selected To change the type of vessel without having to add a new unit operation.
Level calculator Vertical cylinder Selected /
Fraction Use levels and Selected To determine how the levels in the tank, and the elevation and diameter of the nozzles affect the product composition. The
calculator nozzles nozzle location and vessel phase (liquid/vapor) level determines how much of each phase, inside the vessel, will exit
through that nozzle.
ΔP Inlet Input data 0 kPa
Vapour outlet Input data 0 kPa
Liquid volume / Calculated 50 %
percent
Liquid percent / Input data 50 %
level
Feed ΔP / Input data 0 kPa
Vessel pressure / Input data 50 %
Table B5
Separator (SP) data.
Design Separator Selected To change the type of vessel without having to add a new unit operation.
Level calculator Vertical cylinder Selected /
Fraction Use levels and Selected To determine how the levels in the tank, and the elevation and diameter of the nozzles affect the product composition. The
calculator nozzles nozzle location and vessel phase (liquid/vapor) level determines how much of each phase, inside the vessel, will exit
through that nozzle.
ΔP Inlet Input data 0 kPa
Vapour outlet Input data 0 kPa
Liquid volume / Calculated 50 %
percent
Liquid percent / Input data 50 %
level
Feed ΔP / Input data 0 kPa
Vessel pressure / Input data 50 %
Table B6
Heat exchanger (Cooler or heater) data.
Heat exchanger model Simple Selected A model for counter-current exchangers to apply to non-linear heat curves broken into intervals, and an energy balance is
weighted performed along each interval. A LMTD and UA are calculated for each interval in the heat curve.
Exchanger orientation Horizontal Selected /
Specified pressure Shell-side Input data 0.1 kPa
drop Tube-side Input data 0.1 kPa
Overall UA / Calculated The product of the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient and the total Area available for heat transfer.
Heat leak / Calculated Loss of cold side duty due to leakage.
Heat loss / Calculated Loss of the hot side duty to leakage.
Tube passes per shell / Input data 2
Number of tubes per / Input data 160
shell
Tube pitch / Input data 50 mm
Tube layout angle / Input data 30◦
Number of shell passes / Input data 1
Number of shell in / Input data 1
series
(continued on next page)
25
Table B6 (continued )
Shell diameter / Input data 739.05 mm

Shell fouling / Input data 0 ◦ C.h.m2/kJ
Shell baffle type Single / /
Baffle spacing / Input data 800 mm
First tube pass flow Counter Selected /
direction
Shell type E Selected /
Table B7
Burner data.
Efficiency / Input data 60 %

O2 mixing efficiency / Input data 100 %
Excess air percent / Calculated HYSYS calculates the required Air flow using a percentage value.
Steady state model Simple fired heater Selected /
Flame status Flame is out Selected Flame status toggles between a lit flame and an extinguished flame.
Combustions boundaies Min air fuel ratio Input data 1
Max air fuel ratio Input data 40
Fuels LPG components Input data 100 %
Table B8
Monthly recordings at critical days of LPG flared from the LPG SP1 ERL1 station in
the event of an anomaly for the last three years.
Month Flared LPG (m3/day)
2020 2021 2022
January 140 44 28
February 70 37 70
March 250 25 21
April 70 70 36
May 20 70 27
June 20 70 40
July 550 50 50
August 31 50 42
September 31 140 94
October 80 70 60
November 70 140 40
December 250 60 35
Table B9
Security limit of daily LPG flared from the LPG
SP1 ERL1/LR1 stations.
Pipeline Flared LPG (m3/day)
SP1 ELR1 120

SP1 LR1 144
References [6] Cao Z, et al. Research on the feasibility of compressed carbon dioxide energy
storage system with underground sequestration in antiquated mine goaf. Energ
Conver Manage 2020;211:112788.
[1] Bakay MS, Ağbulut Ü. Electricity production based forecasting of greenhouse gas
[7] Sałyga S, Badyda K. Energy analysis of underwater energy storage system based on
emissions in Turkey with deep learning, support vector machine and artificial
compressed air. Trans Inst Fluid-flow Mach 2016;131:151–60.
neural network algorithms. J Clean Prod 2021;285:125324.
[8] Zhang J, et al. Performance analysis of diabatic compressed air energy storage (D-
[2] SONATRACH. Description du Réseau de Transport par Canalisation des
CAES) system. Energy Proc 2019;158:4369–74.
hydrocarbures & Tarifs de Transport pour l’Année 2021. SONATRCH; 2021. p. 1–6.
[9] Krawczyk P, et al. Comparative thermodynamic analysis of compressed air and
[3] FICHE TECHNIQUE Système de Transport par Canalisation GPL LR1/DLR1/LNZ1-
liquid air energy storage systems. Energy 2018;142:46–54.
12″ et son Expansion ELR1 Alrar – Haoud El Hamra – Hassi R’mel; 2018. p. 23.
[10] Morgan R, et al. Liquid air energy storage – analysis and first results from a pilot
[4] Audit énergétique de la station de pompage ELR1 Haoud El Hamra/SONATRACH
scale demonstration plant. Appl Energy 2015;137:845–53.
RTH_Rapport final Agence Nationale pour la Promotion et la Rationalisation de
[11] Esmaeilion F, et al. Performance investigation of a novel polygeneration system
l’Utilisation de l’Energie (APRUE) 2019.
based on liquid air energy storage. Energ Conver Manage 2023;277:116615.
[5] Sałyga S, Szabłowski Ł, Badyda K. Comparison of constant volume energy storage
[12] Esmaeilion F, Soltani M, Nathwani J. Assessment of a novel solar-powered
systems based on compressed air. Int J Energy Res 2021;45(5):8030–40.
polygeneration system highlighting efficiency, exergy, economic and
environmental factors. Desalination 2022;540:116004.
26
[13] Esmaeilion F, et al. Conventional and advanced exergy and exergoeconomic [39] Kabadi VN, Danner RP. A modified Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state for
analysis of a novel multi-fueled cogeneration system with desalination. Energy Rep water-hydrocarbon phase equilibria. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1985;24(3):
2023;9:5704–20. 537–41.
[14] Esmaeilion F, et al. Design, analysis, and optimization of a novel poly-generation [40] Knapp H. Vapor-liquid equilibria for mixtures of low boiling substances. Chem
system powered by solar and wind energy. Desalination 2022;543:116119. Data Ser 1989;6:parts 1–4.
[15] Szablowski L, et al. Energy and exergy analysis of adiabatic compressed air energy [41] Stryjek R, Vera JH. PRSV: An improved peng—Robinson equation of state for pure
storage system. Energy 2017;138:12–8. compounds and mixtures. Can J Chem Eng 1986;64(2):323–33.
[16] Budt M, et al. A review on compressed air energy storage: basic principles, past [42] Wilson GM. A new correlation of NH3, CO2, and H2S volatility data from aqueous
milestones and recent developments. Appl Energy 2016;170:250–68. sour water systems; 1980.
[17] Raju M, Kumar Khaitan S. Modeling and simulation of compressed air storage in [43] Passut CA, RP D. Development of a four-parameter corresponding states method:
caverns: a case study of the Huntorf plant. Appl Energy 2012;89(1):474–81. vapor pressure prediction; 1974.
[18] Sun H, Luo X, Wang J. Feasibility study of a hybrid wind turbine system – [44] Perry RH, Green DW, Maloney JO. Perry’s chemical engineer’s handbook chemical
Integration with compressed air energy storage. Appl Energy 2015;137:617–28. engineer’s handbook. McGraw-Hill; 1984.
[19] Zhang Y, et al. Compressed air energy storage system with variable configuration [45] Keenan J, Keyes F. Thermodynamic and transport properties of steam. Wiley and
for accommodating large-amplitude wind power fluctuation. Appl Energy 2019; Sons; 1959.
239:957–68. [46] Daubert T, Danner R. API technical data book petroleum refining. Washington, DC:
[20] Liu W, et al. Analysis and optimization of a compressed air energy American Petroleum Institute (API); 1997. Google Scholar There is no
storage—combined cycle system. Entropy 2014;16(6):3103–20. corresponding record for this reference.
[21] Yin Jl et al. A hybrid energy storage system using pump compressed air and micro- [47] Brown GM. Thermodynamics—chemical engineering fundamentals review
hydro turbine. Renew Energy 2014;65:117–22. condensed -complete copy for sale. Ind Eng Chem 1960;52(5):451–5.
[22] Li C. A systematic evaluation of adiabatic-compressed air energy storage (A-CAES) [48] Woelflin W. The viscosity of crude-oil emulsions. In: Drilling and production
based on generating side photovoltaic: a case study on western China. Energy practice. OnePetro; 1942.
Storage n/a(n/a):e439. [49] Reid R, Prausnitz J, Poling B. The properties of gases & liquids. Boston: McGraw
[23] Sarmast S, et al. Sizing-design method for compressed air energy storage (CAES) Hill; 1987.
systems: a case study based on power grid in Ontario. Energ Conver Manage 2023; [50] Twu CH. Internally consistent correlation for predicting liquid viscosities of
277:116656. petroleum fractions. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1985;24(4):1287–93.
[24] Bashiri Mousavi S, et al. Transient thermodynamic modeling and economic [51] Ely JF. A computer program for the prediction of viscosity and thermal
analysis of an adiabatic compressed air energy storage (A-CAES) based on cascade conductivity in hydrocarbon mixtures, Vol. 13. US Department of Commerce,
packed bed thermal energy storage with encapsulated phase change materials. National Bureau of Standards; 1981.
Energ Conver Manage 2021;243:114379. [52] Hankinson RW, Thomson GH. A new correlation for saturated densities of liquids
[25] Jin H, Liu P, Li Z. Dynamic modeling and design of a hybrid compressed air energy and their mixtures. AIChE J 1979;25(4):653–63.
storage and wind turbine system for wind power fluctuation reduction. Comput [53] Jacobsen RT, Stewart RB. Thermodynamic properties of nitrogen including liquid
Chem Eng 2019;122:59–65. and vapor phases from 63 K to 2000 K with pressures to 10,000 bar. J Phys Chem
[26] Ahmed Gouda E, Abd-Alaziz A, El-Saadawi M. Economical and experimental study Ref Data 1973;2(4):757–922.
of hybrid power system of compressed air energy storage with photovoltaic array [54] Grayson H. Vapor-liquid equilibria for high temperature, high pressure
and wind turbine generator. MEJ-Mansoura Eng J 2021;46(2):32–41. hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon systems. In: 6th world congress; 1963. p. 19–26.
[27] Jafarizadeh H, Soltani M, Nathwani J. Assessment of the Huntorf compressed air [55] Chao K, Seader J. A general correlation of vapor-liquid equilibria in hydrocarbon
energy storage plant performance under enhanced modifications. Energ Conver mixtures. AIChE J 1961;7(4):598–605.
Manage 2020;209:112662. [56] Prausnitz JM, Lichtenthaler RN, De Azevedo EG. Molecular thermodynamics of
[28] Mozayeni H. Development of a combined pumped hydro and compressed air fluid-phase equilibria. Pearson Education; 1998.
energy storage system. University of Tasmania; 2019. [57] Reid R, Prausnitz J, Sherwood TK. The properties of gases and liquids. New York,
[29] Bazdar E, et al. Compressed air energy storage in integrated energy systems: a St. Louis, San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1977.
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;167:112701. [58] Zudkevitch D, Joffe J. Correlation and prediction of vapor-liquid equilibria with
[30] Khadidja B. Présentation SOLAR LAB, 2021, La 11ème édition du Salon the Redlich-Kwong equation of state. AIChE J 1970;16(1):112–9.
international des énergies renouvelables, des énergies propres et du [59] Argyrou MC, et al. A grid-connected photovoltaic system: Mathematical modeling
développement durable; Era 2021. using MATLAB/Simulink. In: 2017 52nd International universities power
[31] Rabi AM, Radulovic J, Buick JM. Comprehensive review of compressed air energy engineering conference (UPEC); 2017. p. 1–6.
storage (CAES) technologies. Thermo 2023;3(1):104–26. [60] Demirel Y. Energy: production, conversion, storage, conservation, and coupling.
[32] Soltanieh M, et al. A review of global gas flaring and venting and impact on the Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
environment: case study of Iran. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2016;49:488–509. [61] Khalili-Garakani A, Nezhadfard M, Iravaninia M. Enviro-economic investigation of
[33] Hajizadeh A, et al. Technical and economic evaluation of flare gas recovery in a various flare gas recovery and utilization technologies in upstream and
giant gas refinery. Chem Eng Res Des 2018;131:506–19. downstream of oil and gas industries. J Clean Prod 2022;346:131218.
[34] Otene IJJ, Murray P, Enongene KE. The potential reduction of carbon dioxide [62] Petri Y, Juliza H, Humala N. Technical and economic analysis use of flare gas into
(CO2) emissions from gas flaring in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry through alternative energy as a breakthrough in achieving zero routine flaring. IOP Conf
alternative productive use. Environments 2016;3(4):31. Ser: Earth Environ Sci 2018;126(1):012132.
[35] WORLD-BANK. Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR); 2022 [cited [63] TheGlobalEconomy.com. LPG production - Country rankings; 2014 [cited 2023
2023 08/03/2023]; Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/ga 06/08/2023]; Available from: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/
sflaringreduction/global-flaring-data. lpg_production/.
[36] HYSYS 3.2 MANUAL: Simulation Basis, 2003, © 2003 Hyprotech, a subsidiary of [64] Jean-Louis K. La thermodynamique dans HYSYS. 2021; Available from:
Aspen Technology, Inc. https://www.scribd.com/document/502368220/ThermoHYSYS-14-15.
[37] Peng D-Y, Robinson DB. A new two-constant equation of state. Ind Eng Chem [65] Plencner RM. Plotting component maps in the Navy/NASA Engine Program
Fundam 1976;15(1):59–64. (NNEP): a method and its usage; 1989.
[38] Soave G. Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich-Kwong equation of state.
Chem Eng Sci 1972;27(6):1197–203.
27

1 s2.0 S0196890423009093 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0196890423009093 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

1 s2.0 S0196890423009093 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Conversion and Management 294 (2023) 117563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

Power control of PV and grid-assisted CAES system integrated into

Nomenclature Tci Critical temperature (◦ C)

1. Introduction voltage to 5.5 KV at each group, enabling a maximum consumption of

January 4.5 2.8 38.5 2.5 28.7 3.0 36.2

Fig. 1. LPG PS1 ELR1 station with an integrated CAES system.

Fig. 2. Flowchart process of CAES system without ATER.

Aspen HYSYS V11 software provides enhanced state equations and

Fig. 3. Flowchart process of CAES system with ATER.

Fig. 4. Flowchart process of CAES system with LPG-TER.

maintenance, the electrical network incurs additional charges to

Fixed costs throughout the 30-year project lifespan

Fixed costs throughout the 30-year project lifespan

2020 2021 2022

January 428.40 214.20 134.64 67.32 85.68 42.84

SP1 LZ2-12″ 306.00 79.02 147.95 25.83 13.50 8.1

1 China 776.52 2.32956 34,083 18,923 42,405

SRK equation of state PR equation of state

For PR equation of state For SRK equation of state

Fugacity coefficient for the PR equation state:

Fugacity coefficient for the SRK equation state:

Parameter Value Comment

Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment

Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment

Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment

Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment

Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment

Shell diameter / Input data 739.05 mm

Parameter Type Specification Value/Comment

Efficiency / Input data 60 %

Month Flared LPG (m3/day)

2020 2021 2022

Pipeline Flared LPG (m3/day)

SP1 ELR1 120

You might also like