Technology Strategy Assessment On Compressed Air Energy Storage

Technology
Strategy
Assessment
Findings from Storage Innovations 2030
Compressed Air Energy Storage
July 2023
About Storage Innovations 2030
This technology strategy assessment on compressed air energy storage (CAES), released as
part of the Long-Duration Storage Shot, contains the findings from the Storage Innovations (SI)
2030 strategic initiative. The objective of SI 2030 is to develop specific and quantifiable research,
development, and deployment (RD&D) pathways to achieve the targets identified in the Long-
Duration Storage Shot, which seeks to achieve 90% cost reductions for technologies that can
provide 10 hours or longer of energy storage within the coming decade. Through SI 2030, the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is aiming to understand, analyze, and enable the innovations
required to unlock the potential for long-duration applications in the following technologies:
• Lithium-ion Batteries
• Lead-acid Batteries
• Flow Batteries
• Zinc Batteries
• Sodium Batteries
• Pumped Storage Hydropower
• Compressed Air Energy Storage
• Thermal Energy Storage
• Supercapacitors
• Hydrogen Storage
The findings in this report primarily come from two pillars of SI 2030—the SI Framework and the
SI Flight Paths. For more information about the methodologies of each pillar, please reference
the SI 2030 Methodology Report, released alongside the ten technology reports.
You can read more about SI 2030 at https://www.energy.gov/oe/storage-innovations-2030.

U.S. Department of Energy | July 2023
Acknowledgments
DOE acknowledges all stakeholders who contributed to the SI 2030 industry input process.
Further information about the stakeholders who participated in the SI Framework and SI Flight
Paths activities can be found in Appendix A. The SI activities were coordinated by Benjamin
Shrager (Office of Electricity, DOE) and the Flight Paths listening session for CAES was facilitated
by Shabbir Ahmed (Argonne National Laboratory) and co-facilitated by Daniel Flowers (Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory). The authors also would like to thank Kate Faris, Whitney Bell,
and others from ICF Next for their excellent organization of the SI Flight Paths sessions and other
support they provided for the SI activities.
Authors
Shabbir Ahmed, Argonne National Laboratory
Daniel L. Flowers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Patrick J. Balducci, Argonne National Laboratory
Reviewers
Craig Henderson, Office of Science, DOE
Benjamin Shrager, Office of Electricity, DOE
Jian Sun, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page ii

Table of Contents
About Storage Innovations 2030 .................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... ii
Background.................................................................................................................................1
History.......................................................................................................................... 1
Current Commercial Usage ......................................................................................... 1
The Process ................................................................................................................. 2
Architectures ............................................................................................................... 2
Baseline Cost .............................................................................................................................4
Pathways to $0.05/kWh ..............................................................................................................4
Pre-Competitive R&D Opportunities ............................................................................................8
Analytics ...................................................................................................................... 8
Technology Components ............................................................................................10
Advanced Materials Development ...............................................................................11
Deployment .................................................................................................................12
Standardization ...........................................................................................................12
Regulatory and Fiscal Policies .....................................................................................13
The Impact of Investment in CAES..............................................................................13
Additional Opportunities and Discussion ...................................................................................14
Reservoir Suitability ....................................................................................................15
Successful Demonstrations .........................................................................................15
Community Development ............................................................................................15
Workforce....................................................................................................................15
Investment Incentives .................................................................................................15
System Cost................................................................................................................15
Long-Term Contracts ..................................................................................................16
Appendix A: Industry Contributors .............................................................................................17
Appendix B: Innovation Matrix and Definitions ..........................................................................18
Appendix C: Innovation Coefficients..........................................................................................20
Appendix D: Descriptive Statistics for Individual Innovations .....................................................21
References ...............................................................................................................................23
DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page iii

Background
Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is one of the many energy storage options that can store
electric energy in the form of potential energy (compressed air) and can be deployed near central
power plants or distribution centers. In response to demand, the stored energy can be discharged
by expanding the stored air with a turboexpander generator. An attractive feature of this technology
is the relative simplicity of the process—a compressor is powered by available electricity to compress
air (charging), which is then stored in a chamber until the energy is needed. During discharge, the
compressed air is run through a turboexpander to generate electricity back to the grid.
The attributes of CAES that make it an attractive option include a wide range of energy storage
capacity (from a few megawatts to several gigawatts), an environmentally friendly process
(especially when no fossil fuel is used for combustion), long life and durability, low self-discharge
(due to a loss of pressure and temperature), and the low cost of the energy stored. Some of the
challenges of this technology include high upfront capital costs, the need for heat during the
expansion step, lower round-trip efficiency (RTE), siting and permitting challenges, difficulty in
identifying and preparing natural caverns for storage, low depth of discharge, and longer response
times.
History
Compressed air has been used for mechanical processes around the world since 1870. Buenos
Aires, Argentina, used air pulses to move clock arms every minute. Starting in 1896, Paris used
compressed air to power homes and industry. Beginning in 1978 with the first utility-scale diabatic
CAES project in Huntorf, Germany, CAES has been the subject of ongoing exploration and
development for grid applications. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has a history of supporting
CAES development. In 2009, DOE awarded a $29.4 million grant for a 300-MW Pacific Gas and
Electric Company installation that uses a saline porous rock formation in Kern County, CA. In 2010,
DOE also supported the development of a 150-MW project in Watkins Glen, NY [1].
Current Commercial Usage

Current operational CAES plants include the following:
1. A utility-scale facility located in Huntorf, Germany, with a 321-MW plant and 532,000 m3 of
underground storage [2]
2. A 110-MW plant in McIntosh, AL, with 270,000 m3 of underground storage [3], [4]
3. Hydrostor Inc.’s 2.2-MW/10-MWh adiabatic system in Ontario, Canada [1]
4. An adiabatic CAES 200-MW plant commissioned in Germany in 2013 [3]
5. A 60-MW/300-MWh facility located in Jiangsu, China [1]
6. A 2.5-MW/4-MWh compressed CO2 facility operating in Sardinia, Italy [1]
7. A 100-MW/400-MWh adiabatic CAES system located in Zhangjakou, China [1]
The longest running CAES systems in Huntorf and McIntosh can be classified as diabatic processes,
and they use underground salt caverns to store the compressed air at pressures in the 4- to 7-bar
range. Recent CAES deployments are pursuing advanced adiabatic and isothermal technologies.
DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 1

The Process
The process of CAES involves compression, storage of high-pressure air, thermal energy
management and exchange, and expansion. Compression generates heat, which optionally can be
stored in a thermal energy storage (TES) medium, rejected, or used in other integrated applications,
thereby improving the RTE of the process. During discharge, the air needs to be heated to
compensate for the expansion cooling. This heat can come from TES (if available), with direct or
indirect contact with the TES medium or by burning fuel. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the major
elements of the process.
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of a CAES process
The management of thermal energy is a key element in the design of the process, each with its own
merits and demerits. CAES processes can be classified as (1) diabatic, where the heat during
compression is either rejected or recovered and fuel is burned during the expansion process, with
an RTE of 46% to 54%; (2) adiabatic, where the heated and compressed air is either stored in the
reservoir during charging and is available at discharge, with an RTE upper bound of 70%; or (3)
isothermal, where the air is compressed, stored, and expanded at close to constant temperature.
The temperature is controlled to a set temperature using electric heat. The isothermal process is
thermodynamically more efficient, with the potential to reach 80% [3] with the various innovative
processes being studied; however, many of these processes are still considered to be
developmental. There are multiple variations of these processes, depending on the temperature and
pressure, the use of TES, the type of reservoir, and other integration options.
Architectures
Figure 2 shows a simplified overview of the CAES classifications. Variations of the basic process
(electricity to compression to storage to expansion to electricity) are the result of configurations that
are designed to match the location. Depleted gas wells, salt mines, porous rocks, and caverns are
well suited for CAES (80% of the United States may be geologically suited for CAES [3]). These
available storage volumes can be either underground at a constant volume and variable pressure

(isochoric) or in underwater tanks with a constant pressure and variable volume (isobaric). The
storage volumes need to match the following:
• The scale of the application (e.g., individual factory, grid)

• Storage duration needs
• Power and energy needs
• The mode of thermal management
• The availability of fuel
• Other considerations
Ultimately, the plant must balance the needs of energy storage (megawatt-hours, MWH), power
(megawatts, MW), initial and operating costs, and plant life. The last two factors, together with RTE,
result in the cost per kilowatt-hour of stored energy.
Figure 2. CAES systems classifications (adapted from [3])

Baseline Cost
A number of recent techno-economic studies have estimated CAES-based stored electricity costs
at $0.15 to $0.60/kWh [5], [6].
The Framework Study identifies promising RD&D pathways to reduce the levelized cost of storage
(LCOS) of key storage technologies. Step 1 of the Framework Study was to assess the RD&D
trajectory status quo for a given technology or to project the performance and cost parameters out
to 2030, given no marginal increase in industry investment over currently planned levels. These
values, presented in Table 1, represent the baseline against which all future impacts are measured.
The cost and performance values are derived exclusively from V. Viswanathan et al. (2022) [7], as
defined for a 100-MW, 10-hour CAES system. There are no interim capital costs defined for this
system, instead, high annual fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are used as a proxy
for all operations, maintenance, and system refurbishment costs over the economic life of the
system. The 2030 LCOS estimate presented for CAES in V. Viswanathan et al. (2022) [7] is
$0.11/kWh; however, that estimate includes $0.03/kWh in energy costs. The 2030 LCOS estimates
presented in the next section exclude energy costs, except for those associated with losses, and are
based on a slightly different LCOS methodology that results in a baseline LCOS of $0.064/kWh.
Note that references to $/kW and $/kWh are related to the power and energy capacities of the CAES
system, respectively.
Table 1. CAES cost and performance (2030 estimates)
Parameter Value Description
CAES System Calendar Life 60 Deployment life (years)
Cycle Life 20,805 Base total number of cycles
RTE 52% Base RTE
Turbine, Compressor, Balance of Plant, and Engineering, Base Capital Costs for Compressor, Balance of
1,153
Procurement, and Construction (EPC) Plant, and EPC ($/kW)
Cavern Storage 6.84 Base cavern storage cost ($/kWh)
O&M Costs 16.12 Base fixed O&M ($/kW-year)
Pathways to $0.05/kWh
Once the baseline costs for 2030 had been established, the Framework Team contacted industry
representatives to identify individual innovation opportunities and assess the potential impacts of
expanded RD&D investment. A group of subject matter experts (SMEs) were identified and
individually contacted. These 23 SMEs, representing 15 organizations, primarily included vendors
and technology developers (e.g., Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage, LLC; Siemens Energy, Inc.;
Themes LLC) and universities (e.g., University of California at Los Angeles, University of Southern
California, University of Minnesota). SMEs who contributed individual information to this report are
acknowledged in Appendix A. The innovations defined by the SMEs are presented in Table 2.
Definitions of each innovation are presented in Appendix B.
Table 2. Taxonomy of innovations
Innovation Category Innovation
Supply chain Supply Chain Analytics
Technology components Mechanical Compression/Expansion


Lower Temperature Turbines
Compressed-Air and Hydrogen Energy Storage Systems
Hydraulic Compression/Expansion
Technologies for Subsurface Evaluation of Porous Rock for Storage
Alternative Approaches to High-Temperature Thermal Storage
Alternative Approaches to Storing Compressed Air
Advanced Heat Exchanger Technologies
Advanced Pressure Regulation Technologies
Manufacturing Advanced Manufacturing Techniques
Advanced Alloys
Novel Materials for Lining Wells for Storage
Advanced materials development
Organic Phase Change Materials
System Modeling and Design/Operation Optimization
Deployment Demonstration Projects
Individual input from SMEs was used to define the investment requirements and timelines for
investment, potential impacts on performance (e.g., RTE, cycle life), and the cost impacts of each
innovation. The Monte Carlo simulation tool then combined each innovation with two to seven other
innovations and, based on the range of impacts estimated by industry, the tool produced the
distribution of achievable outcomes by 2030 with respect to LCOS (Figure 3). The LCOS range with
the highest concentration of simulated outcomes is in the $0.03 to $0.04/kWh range. However, some
portfolios reduce LCOS further, with the highest impact portfolios (the top 10%), which are indicated
on the figure by the marked region, resulting in LCOS between $0.021 and $0.030/kWh.
Figure 3. Portfolio frequency distribution across LCOS

The results of the Monte Carlo simulation for the thousands of portfolios that fall within the top 10%
in terms of LCOS impact are presented in Figure 4. The scatter plot of portfolio values demonstrates
that the top 10% of the portfolios reach their lowest level at roughly $0.021/kWh LCOS. The vertical
line demonstrates that the mean portfolio cost is $745 million, which represents the marginal

investment over the currently planned levels required to achieve the corresponding LCOS
improvements. Total industry expenditure levels with the highest portfolio densities in the top 10%
are in the $600 million to $900 million range. With that noted, there is an unusual pattern that
emerges, driven by the costs of the different innovations. There is a small subset of portfolios that
achieve deeply discounted LCOS levels without requiring investment in some of the higher cost
innovations, such as demonstration projects and technologies for subsurface evaluation of porous
rock for storage. The timeline required to achieve the top 10% LCOS levels is estimated at 5 to 10
years.
Figure 4. LCOS and estimated industry expenditures required for the top 10% of the portfolios
Note that the impact of each layered innovation is not additive. To account for this, the Monte Carlo
model uses innovation coefficient matrices, which assign a value between 0 and 1 for each pair of
innovations. These innovation coefficients indicate what fraction of savings potential for each
innovation is independent of the other one. This way, a value of 1.0 represents two entirely
independent innovations, where cost savings will stack linearly, and a value of 0.0 represents two
entirely overlapping innovations, where only the more impactful innovation will have an effect on
LCOS. Working with SMEs, the research teams established innovation coefficients that are used to
measure the combined impact of multiple innovations. a Innovation coefficients for each innovation
pairing are presented in Appendix C.
SMEs also were asked for their preferences regarding the investment mechanism for any
intervention, selecting among National Laboratory research, research and development (R&D)
grants, loans, and technical assistance. Table 3 presents the SME preferences for each mechanism.
Cells with asterisks (*) represent the preferred mechanism. CAES SMEs overwhelmingly supported
R&D grants as the preferred mechanism. National Laboratory research, typically with collaboration
a To demonstrate how innovation coefficients work, the innovation coefficient for the combined investment in mechanical
compression/expansion and hydraulic compression/expansion is 0, which means that the Monte Carlo simulation tool
would not attribute any additional impact to the second innovation when added to the first. The reason is that investments
in both technologies would not be additive or build on each other and would not benefit the same CAES system. The model
would select the greatest impact between the two innovations and not consider both. The innovation coefficient for
mechanical compression and system modeling and design/operation optimization is 1.0, meaning that both impacts would
be fully realized because they could benefit the same CAES system and would not, in some way, cancel each other out.

by universities and industry, was favored for efforts involving modeling or basic research (e.g., supply
chain analytics, alternative approaches to high-temperature thermal storage, advanced alloys).
Loans were selected for some innovations involving industrial processes and demonstration projects
that would require significant industry investment.
Table 3. SME preferences for investment mechanisms. (Technical Assistance includes advice or guidance on
issues or goals, tools and maps, and training provided by government agencies or National Laboratories to
support industry.)
National
Innovation Laboratory Technical
Research R&D Grants Loans Assistance
Supply Chain Analytics 80.0% * 0.0% 0.0% 20.0%
Mechanical Compression/Expansion 35.7% 50.0% * 7.1% 7.1%
Lower Temperature Turbines 12.5% 50.0% * 25.0% 12.5%
Compressed Air and Hydrogen Energy Storage
Systems 12.5% 62.5% * 12.5% 12.5%
Hydraulic Compression/Expansion 28.6% 71.4% * 0.0% 0.0%
Technologies for Subsurface Evaluation of Porous
Rock for Storage 33.3% 44.4% * 11.1% 11.1%
Alternative Approaches to High-Temperature
Thermal Storage 44.4% * 44.4% * 0.0% 11.1%
Alternative Approaches to Storing Compressed Air 30.8% 46.2% * 7.7% 15.4%
Advanced Heat Exchanger Technologies 36.4% 45.5% * 18.2% 0.0%
Advanced Pressure Regulation Technologies 42.9% 57.1% * 0.0% 0.0%
Advanced Manufacturing Techniques 33.3% * 33.3% * 16.7% 16.7%
Advanced Alloys 50.0% * 37.5% 12.5% 0.0%
Novel Materials for Lining Wells for Storage 22.2% 33.3% * 33.3% * 11.1%
Organic Phase Change Materials 50.0% * 50.0% * 0.0% 0.0%
System Modeling and Design/Operation
Optimization 33.3% 41.7% * 8.3% 16.7%
Demonstration Projects 14.3% 38.1% * 33.3% 14.3%
The share of innovations in the top 10% of the portfolios are presented in Figure 5. As discussed in
the next section of this report and illustrated in Figure 4, the portfolios appear to fall into two tranches
of investment levels, with a smaller share focused exclusively on mid- to high-impact innovations
with lower investment requirements (e.g., system modeling and design/operation optimization, low-
temperature turbines) and a large share achieving the deep discounts with some of the highest cost
innovations, which would require significant industry engagement and collaboration, including
demonstration projects and advanced manufacturing.

Figure 5. Innovation representation in the top 10% of the portfolios
Pre-Competitive R&D Opportunities

This section discusses the key challenges facing large-scale CAES adoption and explores how and
what types of pre-competitive RD&D can further elevate the prospects of CAES, both technically
and economically. Some key technical barriers with this technology include lower system efficiency,
inconsistent benchmarking, and the characterization of available resources for compressed air
storage. Following the discussion of the key challenges and RD&D opportunities, this section
includes an evaluation of the RD&D pathways defined through industry contacts under the
Framework Study.
Analytics
As an energy storage application, the first technical goal is to ensure energy conservation and high
efficiency. That is, the goal is to have the energy that is discharged as electricity, after the storage
interval, be as close to the total energy (electricity or in other forms, such as fuels) that entered the
CAES plant. Other analytical efforts are designed to improve other performance metrics, including
response times and energy densities, and reduce costs through enhanced siting, storage, availability
of needed materials and components, and other key elements. Any process development or
assessment of a technology has to begin with an understanding of, and agreement on, the metrics.
Round-Trip Efficiency
RTE is one of those quintessential metrics and is usually defined as the output electrical energy
discharged after storage as a percentage of the incoming energy (electricity and any energy via fuel
combustion). For grid storage, the important product or output is discharged electricity. The input or
denominator in the definition of RTE should include all incoming energy forms that enter the plant
(system) boundary, even if it is available at no cost.

The theoretical upper limit of RTE for CAES is defined by thermodynamics, while what is achievable
is determined from the combination of each of the individual steps. For example, if the compressor
and expander each operate at an efficiency of 80%, then the process efficiency cannot be greater
than 64% (80% x 80%).
During discharge or compressed-air expansion, CAES systems choose various options to heat the
air, such as the combustion of natural gas, hydrogen, electric heating with power from on-site, or
nearby renewables. Per the definition of efficiency, their energy content should be included in the
accounting of input energy.
The industrial participants at the Flight Paths listening session indicated that there is broad variability
in their estimates of RTE, with some values exceeding the apparent thermodynamic limits. This
underscores the importance of using a standardized RTE definition and is necessary for developers,
investors, and analysts to have a clearer idea of the value of a proposed system and how it compares
with competing storage technologies.
Product Cost
The cost of the product (i.e., the cost of electricity discharged through the plant gate) is calculated
from the cost of the investment (capital expenditures) and operations (operating expenditures).
Achieving high energy conservation (i.e., high RTE for a given plant cost) will invariably result in
favorable values of the cost metrics that are normalized with respect to the power or energy sold,
such as LCOS. Pre-competitive, collaborative R&D should begin with agreement on the definition of
RTE and other relevant metrics and should be a priority for all energy storage options.
SMEs participating in the Framework Study defined several opportunities to reduce product costs
through the use of advanced analytics:
• Enhance system modeling and design optimization through the use of artificial
intelligence/machine learning to study digital twins in simulated economic operations, using
the findings as a feedback loop to system design.
• Develop standardized testing and measurement procedures, perhaps through the
development of an industry standard protocol to create consistent performance
measurement, including RTE.
• Design management and control systems for optimally siting CAES and
integrating/managing multiple CAES systems located in a single region or balancing area.
• Reduce risk in the supply of critical long-duration energy storage CAES systems (e.g.,
rotating equipment, thermal energy storage materials).
The impacts of these analytical activities on CAES cost and performance are explored later in this
section.
Other advanced analytical approaches, including the development of digital twins for predictive
maintenance, could be used to predict the need for repairs to reduce downtime and the associated
costs.
Techno-Economic Analysis
Potential developers, investors, and energy analysts seek information about the value of a project.
Such information is generated with techno-economic analysis of a concept where the process is
defined, the components are sized, the performance (e.g., energy, power, load response, efficiency,
storage duration, greenhouse gas emissions) is rated, and cost metrics (e.g., capital cost, operating
cost, LCOS, levelized cost of energy) are calculated. A model representing a CAES process can
identify the limiting step (e.g., energy efficiency, capital cost, labor, response time) and follow that

with RD&D investments to mitigate or improve that performance metric with new materials, operating
conditions, or devices. An analytical approach with techno-economic analysis complements concept
development and subsequent scale-up. Such analysis can help (1) set achievable targets; (2)
identify bottlenecks that limit the performance and cost and guide RD&D priorities; (3) assess the
cost versus benefit of alternative options in the process; (4) size components to match market
availability and options for modular designs; and (5) identify favorable operating domains by
balancing power, energy, and competitive advantage with respect to alternative storage options.
These analyses can serve as valuable tools in size (capacity) versus cost discussions between a
developer and component (e.g., compressor, turbine) suppliers.
Balancing Power and Energy

Higher power (in megawatts) charge and discharge rates require large compressors and expanders.
The volumetric capacity of these units is correlated to the square of the cylinder diameter. Large
turbines are available with capacities of hundreds of megawatts [8], with fan diameters of 3 meters
or more [9]. While large units are cost-effective, the size and number of each functional component
need to be matched to avoid operating at loads far from the design loads, while allowing redundancy
for maintenance downtime. Energy storage capacity (in megawatt-hours), on the other hand, is
determined by the amount of air (and thermal energy) that can be stored. Higher pressure and
volume (and temperature of the TES media) equate to more energy storage capacity. A high energy-
to-power ratio enables longer charge and discharge periods. The incremental cost of a larger
underground reservoir, therefore, is lower than that of multiple storage tanks.
Technology Components
This section reviews the broad areas that can support key technology areas, such as compressed-
air storage volume, thermal energy storage and management strategies, and integration of the
process steps with on-site and nearby energy providers and consumers.
Characterization of Storage Resources

Underground reservoirs (abandoned mines, oil or gas fields, aquifers, and caverns) may enable very
large volumes of storage. Their value depends on their proximity to power sources, their suitability, b
their acquisition cost, and the permitting time needed. Repurposed idle pipeline networks represent
another great resource for CAES systems. Leveraging these storage volumes can potentially save
significant capital costs and enable the commercial success of such ventures. Developing a
database of such resources and their characteristics (e.g., location, volume, porosity, permeability
[10]) will be invaluable to CAES developers seeking to match their preferred locations with reservoirs
(terrestrial or underwater coastal) nearby.
Framework Study SMEs also identified technologies for subsurface evaluation of porous rock for
storage as an important innovation. Multiple innovations are required for evaluating the viability of
subsurface rock for air storage, including geophysical density measurements for accurate
assessment of storage capacity; rapid pressure testing technologies for confirming reservoir
deliverability; rapid, low-cost tubular lining for storage; effective isolation technologies to isolate
hydrocarbon layers from aquifer layers; monitoring and surveillance technologies to confirm well
integrity and ensure the elimination of fugitive emissions; and workflows for rapidly assessing the
feasibility of idle oil and gas well sites for storage.
Aboveground storage with tanks requires a footprint with real estate implications. Some footprint
requirements can be mitigated with vertical tanks with high length-to-diameter (L/D) ratios. A high
L/D allows thinner walls for a given pressure rating. Applications that have adopted idled natural gas
b The DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory recommends > 10% porosity, > 500 mD [10].

pipelines for CAES storage take advantage of the high L/D and pre-permitted access and use.
Repurposed pipelines can greatly reduce the capital cost of a plant.
Thermal Energy Storage

A key need for CAES systems is to integrate the thermal energy between the compression and the
expansion steps. Because the charge and discharge are asynchronous, an efficient heat exchange
system and a thermal energy storage medium are both needed. Options for the latter range from
selecting the medium (sensible heat in liquids or solids, phase change material), which, in turn, is
guided by, for example, the temperature range of the medium, the option of using and selecting a
heat exchange fluid, containment of the medium and its energy loss rate, and so on. A
comprehensive study of these options and their tradeoffs can help developers select the most
appropriate combination for the needs and constraints of a given plant. SMEs participating in the
Framework Study also called for the development of alternative approaches to high-temperature
thermal storage. Other innovations include the design of low-cost thermal storage techniques (e.g.,
concrete, molten silicon, alumina spheres) that provide high capacity at a minimum cost and
improved water-based storage with insulated tanks that enable longer duration heat storage.
Process Integration
Chemical plants increase the utilization of their resources by integrating multiple units and
processes. Adiabatic and isothermal CAES systems attempt to store and exchange thermal energy
between charge and discharge. A significant fraction of that energy cannot be recouped
economically due to low temperature (or quality) and has to be wasted. Depending on the
temperature, this energy can potentially be used to generate steam, hot water, or space heating for
the CAES facilities or nearby buildings and processes. Similarly, the air at the turbine exit is at
sufficient pressure that it may be useable in other low-pressure applications in nearby facilities (e.g.,
a compressed-air network in the plant or nearby industry, forges, and furnaces). Reducing waste
energy can improve the efficiency of the process and reduce plant operating costs. Yet another
example is to continue to use compressors to support a carbon dioxide capture plant. Carbon dioxide
can be a potential working fluid in a closed-loop CAES-like system, with coupling to carbon capture
and supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion. Analysis and integration of the waste streams
and idled equipment with on-site or nearby applications will help make a stronger case for their
commercial success.
Advanced Materials Development

Energy Density
Depending on the type of process, the energy density of CAES systems can range from 3 to 24
kWh/m3. The energy density of CAES systems exceed pumped storage hydropower densities of 0.5
to 1.5 kWh/m3, is lower than vanadium redox flow battery densities of 10 to 70 kWh/m3, and is much
lower than lithium-ion systems, which register energy densities ranging from 150 to 500 kWh/m3 [11].
The largest component in such systems is the storage medium for the compressed air. This means
that higher pressure storage enables reduced volume and higher energy density. Identifying
underground reservoirs (e.g., with color-coded maps) and their temperature-pressure capacity,
along with feasibility strategies to increase their tolerance, will help increase the energy density. The
most common rock cavern lining method being explored consists of an inner steel shell and an outer
reinforced concrete shell. With the goal of enhancing energy density while avoiding leakage, failure,
or loss of tightness of the sealing membrane, new methods (e.g., shallow lined rock cavern tunnels
or concrete liners with a fiber-reinforced plastic sealing layer) have been demonstrated and tested
in pilot projects or investigated with computational models [12], [13]. For aboveground storage, larger

single enclosures with larger surface areas require stronger or thicker walls. Choosing materials with
high tensile strength and tolerance to pressure cycles is an area for tradeoff studies between cost
and containment volume. If applications are constrained with regard to footprint rather than volume,
one option is to array the vertical cylinders. A systematic study to review these and other strategies
with regard to tradeoff scenarios can lead to improved energy density [14].
Durable Materials
The major components—the compressor, expander, heat exchangers, thermal energy storage
medium, and storage containers—experience cycles of temperature and pressure. The combination
of pressure and temperature causes fatigue and cycling processes accelerate their failure and
replacement. The development of novel materials and operational strategies (e.g., temperature
control, reducing pressure swings using containers rated for different pressures) may be able to
extend their durability. Such research would benefit other applications that rely on these components
(e.g., jet engines, power plants). Other materials-related innovations defined in the Framework Study
included advanced alloys designed to be more cost-effective, more corrosion-resistant, and more
capable of bearing high pressures and the development of organic phase change materials that can
be tailored to the temperature range for heat transfer in a CAES system.
Deployment
Demonstration Plants
Research, development, demonstration, and deployment are necessary steps for CAES, or any new
technology, to mature. While CAES systems may be set up with major components available “off the
shelf,” revisions based on new options and experience in order to fine-tune the process design lead
to performance improvements, while the demand for similar components energizes the supply side
and leads to cost reduction. Framework Study SMEs stressed the importance of demonstration
projects incorporating novel CAES strategies, including novel system types (e.g., isothermal,
adiabatic) and approaches to storage (e.g., pipeline storage, storage in drained saline aquifers,
storage in underwater pressure vessels). Analytic support could be supplied by National
Laboratories to determine RTE under various use cases and to conduct techno-economic studies,
lifecycle cost studies, and valuation assessments.
Co-Location
The location of CAES plants seeks to balance demand, opportunity, and cost. Ideally, a CAES plant
will be located close to (1) a power generation facility (limited transmission losses, establishing a
mutually beneficial relationship); (2) a geologically suitable reservoir (avoiding the construction and
maintenance of storage tanks and reducing footprint requirements); (3) a reservoir for storage of the
thermal energy; (4) facilities or buildings that have a demand for steam, hot water, hot air, or
pressurized air; and (5) a community with the needed workforce. A pre-competitive study to identify
areas where several of these combinations are available may facilitate the greater development of
CAES.
Standardization
In general, fewer larger components benefit from economies of scale, which enables a reduction in
the unitized cost of supporting subcomponents. Current generations of compressors, turbines,
pressure vessels, and other components are sized based on the demands of other applications (e.g.,
gas turbine plants, jet engines). Today, there appears to be CAES systems that range from early
Technology Readiness Level to operational plants. With each successful venture, repetitions may
follow but on different scales. Pre-competitive agreements to standardize key component sizing may

help suppliers design and build plants in larger numbers so that plants of different scales can set up
and expand capacity. This will help the component manufacturers increase their production volume
and reduce their costs, while CAES plants can expand their capacities in modular steps. Advanced
manufacturing techniques that include automation, waste reduction, and the integration of best
practices from existing manufacturing modalities could yield significant cost reductions according to
the SMEs interviewed for the Framework Study, as could more flexible robotic welding in the
manufacturing of pressure vessels and pipes.
Component Sizing
The component market offers compressors, expanders, turbines, heat exchangers, and gas storage
volumes of different capacities. A given plant needs to balance the speeds of rotating equipment
and optimize their sizing for cost. Speed reducers often are used to balance the rotation speeds of
turbines and synchronous generators [15]. If multiple plants can use hardware coordinated for
specific capacities, their cost can be reduced through mass production.
Regulatory and Fiscal Policies

CAES system development requires extensive permitting from various government agencies. The
permitting process invariably takes time and adds uncertainty. Industrial proponents of CAES have
identified this process as a significant challenge. Policies laying out the ground rules for energy
storage applications and their permitting process can reduce the lead time and reduce the cost of
these plants and their product, which is stored and discharged electric energy. For example, the
state of Kansas has facilitated these processes with their Compressed Air Energy Storage Act [16],
effective since 2009. A study that reports on promising locations, permitting processes and
challenges, and mitigating solutions would help developers navigate these issues during the
planning phase.
The Impact of Investment in CAES

The Framework Study identified several high-impact RD&D pathways, many of which have already
been discussed in this section. The impacts on investments in specific technologies, as defined
based on SME input, are presented in Table 4. Some technologies presented in Table 4 (e.g.,
compressed air and hydrogen energy storage systems, lower temperature turbines) have upside
potential; however, significant RD&D investment would be required to realize the cost reductions
estimated by the industry. There also are several innovations that would have a moderate impact at
fairly low investment levels, including system modeling and design/operation optimization, supply
chain analytics, and advanced heat exchanger technologies.
Investments
CAES is dissimilar to other energy storage technologies, although it does share a feature with
pumped storage hydropower: it comprises a series of subsystems, which include mature
technologies, such as compressors, expanders, turbines, and heat exchangers. Therefore, no single
investment would be expected to drive large cost reductions; this is evident in Table 4, with no single
investment expected to reduce capital costs by more than 18% by 2030. CAES represents a very
small market for many of the technologies that it requires, including heat exchanges, turbines, and
compressors. Therefore, the incentive for industry to address these technological shortcomings is
lower than for other energy storage technologies. CAES also consists of multiple technologies (e.g.,
diabatic, adiabatic, isothermal) and some innovations are exclusive to a single technology, thus
dampening the combined effects.

Table 4. The impacts of proposed R&D investment levels, mean investment levels, and timelines
Turbine,
Compressor, Round-trip
Innovation EPC, and Cavern Cycle Life Efficiency Mean Investment
Storage Improvement Impact Requirement (in Mean Timeline
(%) (%) (%) million $) (years)
Supply Chain Analytics -7.7% 6.0% 3.0% 1.8 1.6
Mechanical Compression/
Expansion -17.7% 26.7% 5.8% 23.9 4.0
Lower Temperature Turbines -13.0% 5.0% 6.5% 25.5 4.0
Compressed Air and Hydrogen
Energy Storage Systems -16.9% 13.3% 10.0% 76.1 5.2
Hydraulic Compression/Expansion -4.7% 9.0% 15.0% 31.8 4.0
Technologies for Subsurface
Evaluation of Porous Rock for
Storage -6.2% 5.0% 0.0% 41.8 3.3
Alternative Approaches to High-
Temperature Thermal Storage -5.1% 0.0% 7.7% 24.1 4.8
Alternative Approaches to Storing
Compressed Air -5.4% 5.0% 2.5% 52.7 4.3
Advanced Heat Exchanger
Technologies -9.7% 13.5% 5.8% 18.4 3.9
Advanced Pressure Regulation
Technologies -7.1% 5.0% 3.5% 14.0 4.3
Advanced Manufacturing
Techniques -15.7% 12.5% 0.0% 12.3 3.4
Advanced Alloys -1.9% 13.3% 3.5% 26.2 3.0
Novel Materials for Lining Wells for
Storage -1.3% 33.3% 1.3% 21.2 3.2
Organic Phase Change Materials 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 8.2 3.8
System Modeling and Design/
Operation Optimization -7.5% 6.7% 9.2% 6.9 2.8
Demonstration Projects -13.1% 8.3% 8.5% 252.0 4.7
The recommended investment level and timeline for each innovation also are identified in Table 4.
Most investment levels are in the $10 million to $30 million range and require investments over 3 to
5 years. Compressed air and hydrogen energy storage systems and demonstration projects require
significant investments and industry collaboration. Advanced manufacturing techniques may be
required to further reduce costs and, while demonstration projects represent a significant opportunity
for cost reduction and may be required to field-test and validate many of the other innovations, the
cost of doing so could be significant.
Additional Opportunities and Discussion

This section explores several additional opportunities for reducing costs, improving performance,
and enhancing the prospects for successful deployment through collaboration among industry,
policymakers, and local communities and by integration with renewable energy generation plants.

Reservoir Suitability
The presence of flammable gases in underground caverns poses the risk of explosion. The presence
of other gases that might require emissions management imposes additional costs. Non-reservoir-
based options also are being considered by industry, including using underground pipelines or
aboveground pressure vessels for energy storage.
Successful Demonstrations
Demonstrations of viability, such as the ability to generate revenue, or a history of safe operations
will help increase buy-in from the community and investors.
Community Development
Recognizable community benefits, such as engagement with residents, the growth of support
services, schools, and hospitals, will help establish how energy storage can complement and
enhance societal benefits. Environmental justice areas can benefit from these energy storage
initiatives, especially if these energy storage facilities can fill in for job losses because of discontinued
coal mines and power plants. CAES systems also can help support off-grid/remote communities
where access to electricity is limited. The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council has
issued draft recommendations to “develop onsite solar, storage and other renewable energy and
energy efficiency projects” [17].
Workforce
The workforce necessary for operating CAES plants is not considered to be a critical need today.
However, skilled personnel and managers are likely to be attracted to locations with good
infrastructure and facilities. Sustainable CAES plants will require a workforce, an energy source
(power plant), and a demand source (other industry or villages and cities). The plant location has to
match all of these, along with myriad other considerations.
Investment Incentives
Several states have set targets (e.g., California, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon) for energy storage capacities, while others (e.g., California, Massachusetts, New York)
have offered incentives for energy storage programs [16]. Kansas has a CAES Act (Kansas HB
2369), which became effective in 2009 [18], [19].
System Cost
CAES systems are relatively easy to set up given that the manufacturing of most of the hardware
components is quite mature. However, these systems are most profitable in large capacities, which
require significant capital investment. System construction costs led to the suspension of a 270-MW
CAES project in Ohio in 2013 [15].
Cheaper construction materials and mass-produced components can greatly lower the capital
requirement. The constraint in materials development or selection is the required durability through
the combination of high temperature and pressure and the stress of cyclical operations. With
increasing deployment and standardization of some components, the cost can be brought down
through mass production.

Long-Term Contracts
CAES systems require significant capital and personnel investment at start-up; however, these
systems can be operated over decades, which is much longer than typical lifetimes of
electrochemical storage systems. Long-term contracts with power generators and power purchase
agreements that account for the very long operational lifetime of CAES would facilitate the prospects
for investment. Feedback from industry participants in the Flight Paths listening session identified
the importance of long-term power purchase agreements and government policies to assure
investors and insurance companies that CAES systems are viable, have manageable risks, and are
well suited for long-term financing.

Appendix A: Industry Contributors

Table A.1. List of SMEs contributing to the Framework analysis
Participant Institution
Donald Paul University of Southern California
Iraj Ershaghi University of Southern California
Ramachandra Shenoy Themes LLC
Ashok Krishna Themes LLC
Ben Hoffman Themes LLC
Masood Parvania University of Utah
Joe Spease WindSoHy, LLC
John Yan Talos Industries
Chris Connors Breeze Inc.
Deni Wiart Breeze Inc.
Michael Orsha Breeze Inc.
Robert Bailie Siemens Energy, Inc.
Jason Kerth Siemens Energy, Inc.
Jack Farley Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage, LLC
Stephen Naeve Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage, LLC
Tri Luu Hydrostor Inc.
Andrew McGillis Hydrostor Inc.
Mark Howitt Storelectric Limited
Seamus Garvey Nottingham University
Eric Loth University of Virginia
Pirouz Kahvepour University of California at Los Angeles
Perry Li University of Minnesota
Benjamin Bollinger Malta, Inc.

Appendix B: Innovation Matrix and Definitions

Table B.1. List of innovations by innovation category. Some innovations apply to cavern storage and tank
storage; however, some only apply to tank storage.
Supply chain Supply Chain Analytics

Mechanical Compression/Expansion
Compressed-Air and Hydrogen Energy Storage Systems
Technology components Technologies for Subsurface Evaluation of Porous Rock for Storage
Alternative Approaches to High-Temperature Thermal Storage
Alternative Approaches to Storing Compressed Air
Advanced Pressure Regulation Technologies
Manufacturing Advanced Manufacturing Techniques
Advanced Alloys
Advanced materials development Novel Materials for Lining Wells for Storage
System Modeling and Design/Operation Optimization
Deployment
Demonstration Projects
Supply chain analytics: Reduce risk in the supply of critical long-duration energy storage CAES
systems (e.g., rotating equipment, thermal energy storage materials).
Mechanical Compression/Expansion: Advance technology for compressors, expanders, and
reciprocating mechanical pistons with high efficiency and heat tolerance.
Lower Temperature Turbines: Develop turbines that operate at a lower temperature to minimize
reheating of air prior to expansion in the turbine to power a generator or to supplement energy output
following the high-temperature turbine stage.
Compressed Air and Hydrogen Energy Storage (CAHES) Systems: Invest in the components
(e.g., hydrogen generator; hydrogen and oxygen compressors; air, hydrogen, oxygen, and water
tanks; exhaust and air expanders; all heat exchangers and CO 2 compressors and pumps) and
systems required to support CAHES development.
Hydraulic Compression/Expansion: Develop liquid piston-based isothermal CAES, including
(1) fast-acting valves (large air and water valves required at scale that need to withstand wear and
tear with opening and closing frequently in short cycles, (2) pumps as turbines (reversible hydraulic
pumps that can act as turbines to reduce the capital expenditures), (3) hydraulic turbines with
variable liquid pressures (novel hydraulic turbines that can operate at high efficiency when facing
falling heads by allowing nozzles to increase flow as pressures fall), and (4) valve seats (materials
that will reduce wear and tear in fast-acting valves).
Technologies for Subsurface Evaluation of Porous Rock for Storage: Address the multiple
innovations required for evaluating the viability of subsurface rock for air storage, including
geophysical density measurements for accurate assessment of storage capacity; rapid pressure

testing technologies for confirming reservoir deliverability; rapid, low-cost tubular lining for storage;
effective isolation technologies to isolate hydrocarbon layers from aquifer layers; monitoring and
surveillance technologies to confirm well integrity; ensuring the elimination of fugitive emissions; and
workflows for rapidly assessing the feasibility of idle oil and gas well sites for storage.
Alternative Approaches to High-Temperature Thermal Storage: Design low-cost thermal
storage techniques (e.g., concrete, molten silicon, alumina spheres) that provide high capacity at a
minimum cost and improved water-based storage with insulated tanks that enable longer duration
heat storage.
Alternative Approaches to Storing Compressed Air: Conduct research into expanding storage
media beyond domal salt, including abandoned pipelines, drained saline aquifers, underwater
pressure vessels, and aboveground tanks.
Advanced Heat Exchanger Technologies: Develop advanced heat exchanger technologies for
managing pressure drops and improving the efficiency of heat exchange.
Advanced Pressure Regulation Technologies: Conduct component design improvements (e.g.,
turbines and valves that can work with variable pressure) to minimize losses due to pressure
regulation.
Advanced Manufacturing: Implement automation, waste reduction approaches, and adapt existing
infrastructure integration of best practices from existing manufacturing modalities. Develop more
flexible robotic welding in the manufacturing of pressure vessels and pipes.
Advanced Alloys: Develop more cost-effective and corrosion-resistant alloys capable of bearing
high pressures.
Novel Materials for Lining Wells for Storage: Lower cost, corrosion-resistant materials for well
liners for the injection/production of compressed working fluids into porous rock.
Organic Phase Change Materials: Develop compounds that can be tailored to the temperature
range for heat transfer in a CAES system.
System Modeling and Design/Operation Optimization: Enhance system modeling and design
optimization through the use of artificial intelligence/machine learning to study digital twins in
simulated economic operations, using the findings as a feedback loop to system design. Develop
standardized testing and measurement procedures, perhaps through the development of an industry
standard protocol to create consistent performance measurement, including RTE. Design
management and control systems for optimally siting CAES and integrating/managing multiple
CAES systems located in a single region or balancing area.
Demonstration Projects: Demonstrate projects incorporating novel CAES strategies, including
novel system types (e.g., isothermal, adiabatic) and approaches to storage (e.g., pipeline storage,
storage in drained saline aquifers, storage in underwater pressure vessels). Analytic support
supplied by National Laboratories to determine RTE under various use cases and conduct techno-
economic studies, lifecycle cost studies, and valuation assessments.

Appendix C: Innovation Coefficients

Table C.1. Innovation coefficients
Novel Materials for Lining Wells for Storage

Technologies for Subsurface Evaluation of

Compressed Air and Hydrogen Energy
Advanced Manufacturing Techniques

Mechanical Compression/Expansion

Alternative Approaches to High-
Advanced Pressure Regulation

Temperature Thermal Storage
Storage (CAHES) Systems
Porous Rock for Storage
Demonstration Projects
Supply Chain Analytics
Compressed Air
Advanced Alloy
Technologies
Optimization
Innovation
Supply Chain Analytics – 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.20 1.00 1.00
Mechanical Compression/Expansion 0.10 – 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00
Lower Temperature Turbines 0.10 1.00 – 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00
Compressed Air and Hydrogen Energy
0.20 0.25 0.25 – 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Storage Systems
Hydraulic Compression/Expansion 0.10 0.00 1.00 0.00 – 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technologies for Subsurface Evaluation of
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Porous Rock for Storage
Alternative Approaches to High-Temperature
0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.30 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Thermal Storage
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00
Compressed Air
Advanced Heat Exchanger Technologies 0.20 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Advanced Pressure Regulation Technologies 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Advanced Manufacturing Techniques 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Advanced Alloys 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Novel Materials for Lining Wells for Storage 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 1.00
Organic Phase Change Materials 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 – 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.75
Optimization
Demonstration Projects 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 –

Appendix D: Descriptive Statistics for Individual Innovations

Table D.1. Descriptive statistics for individual innovations
Innovation_ Invest_ Invest _ Invest _ Invest _ Timeline_ Timeline_ Timeline_ Timeline_ sbc_ sbc_ sbc_ sbc_ cyc_ cyc_ cyc_ cyc_
Innovation
cat low high mean std low high mean std low high mean std low high mean std
Supply Chain
Supply Chain Analytics 0.50 5.00 1.78 1.38 0.50 3.00 1.61 0.87 (0.02) (0.10) (0.08) 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.04
Mechanical
Compression/Expansion 2.00 100.00 23.93 33.09 2.00 10.00 3.97 2.12 (0.02) (0.66) (0.18) 0.22 0.05 0.50 0.27 0.18
Lower Temperature
Turbines 1.00 100.00 25.50 34.17 2.00 7.00 4.00 1.83 (0.05) (0.19) (0.13) 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 –
Compressed Air and
Hydrogen Energy Storage
Systems 1.00 300.00 76.09 93.73 1.00 20.00 5.23 5.21 (0.10) (0.24) (0.17) 0.07 0.05 0.25 0.13 0.08
Hydraulic
Compression/Expansion 2.00 100.00 31.80 36.62 2.00 7.00 4.00 1.55 0.09 (0.19) (0.05) 0.12 0.02 0.20 0.09 0.08
Technologies for
Technology
Subsurface Evaluation of
Components
Porous Rock for Storage 0.50 200.00 41.83 62.92 1.00 5.00 3.33 1.56 (0.01) (0.12) (0.06) 0.06 – 0.10 0.05 0.05
Alternative Approaches to
High-Temperature Thermal
Storage 1.00 100.00 24.13 29.79 2.00 10.00 4.75 2.29 – (0.10) (0.05) 0.05 – – – –
Storing Compressed Air 1.00 400.00 52.73 113.13 2.00 10.00 4.33 2.31 0.01 (0.12) (0.05) 0.06 – 0.10 0.05 0.05
Technologies 1.00 100.00 18.43 26.13 1.00 8.00 3.86 1.85 (0.05) (0.19) (0.10) 0.06 0.02 0.25 0.14 0.12
Advanced Pressure
Regulation Technologies 2.00 50.00 14.00 15.90 2.00 10.00 4.25 2.44 (0.05) (0.09) (0.07) 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 –
Manufacturing
Techniques 1.00 50.00 12.29 16.51 1.00 5.00 3.43 1.50 (0.09) (0.19) (0.16) 0.04 – 0.25 0.13 0.13
Advanced Alloys 1.00 100.00 26.22 39.81 – 5.00 3.00 1.65 (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) – 0.05 0.25 0.13 0.08
Advanced
Novel Materials for Lining
Materials
Wells for Storage 1.00 100.00 21.20 29.66 1.00 5.00 3.17 1.52 (0.00) (0.03) (0.01) 0.01 – 1.00 0.33 0.47
Development
Organic Phase Change
Materials 3.00 20.00 8.17 5.70 2.00 5.00 3.83 1.21 – – – – – – – –
System Modeling and
Design/Operation
Deployment Optimization 0.50 25.00 6.88 7.32 0.50 5.00 2.79 1.57 – (0.10) (0.08) 0.04 – 0.10 0.07 0.05
Demonstration Projects 2.00 2,000.00 252.00 515.41 0.50 10.00 4.70 2.86 (0.10) (0.22) (0.13) 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.02
sbc = storage block cost, cyc = lifetime cycles
Note that storage block costs are a proxy for 94% of total system costs, whereas balance of plant, which serves as a proxy for the cost
of cavern storage, is roughly 6% of total system costs.

Innovation_ rte_ rte_ rte_ rte_ bpc_ bpc_ bpc_ bpc_ fom_ fom_ fom_ fom_ vom_ vom_ vom_ vom_
Innovation
cat low high mean std low high mean std low high mean std low high mean std
Supply Chain
Supply Chain Analytics 0.03 0.03 0.03 – (0.05) (0.25) (0.15) 0.10 (0.05) (0.10) (0.08) 0.03 (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) –
Mechanical
Compression/Expansion 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.02 (0.05) (0.10) (0.09) 0.02 0.10 (0.05) 0.03 0.08 0.50 (0.05) 0.23 0.28
Lower Temperature
Turbines 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.04 (0.05) (0.20) (0.13) 0.08 (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) – (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) –
Compressed Air and
Hydrogen Energy Storage
Systems 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.04 (0.10) (0.25) (0.20) 0.07 (0.10) (0.25) (0.18) 0.08 (0.10) (0.25) (0.18) 0.08
Hydraulic
Compression/Expansion 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.11 (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) – (0.04) (0.10) (0.07) 0.03 (0.04) (0.10) (0.07) 0.03
Technologies for
Technology
Subsurface Evaluation of
Components
Porous Rock for Storage – – – – – (0.50) (0.25) 0.25 – – – – – – – –
High-Temperature Thermal
Storage 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.20 (0.30) (0.10) 0.22 0.10 (0.20) (0.02) 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.05 –
Storing Compressed Air – 0.05 0.03 0.03 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) – – (0.10) (0.05) 0.05 – (0.10) (0.05) 0.05
Technologies 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.02 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) – (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) – (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) –
Advanced Pressure
Regulation Technologies 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 (0.05) (0.10) (0.08) 0.03 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) – (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) –
Manufacturing
Techniques – – – – (0.10) (0.25) (0.18) 0.08 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) – (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) –
Advanced Alloys 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 (0.02) (0.50) (0.26) 0.20 (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) – (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) –
Advanced
Novel Materials for Lining
Materials
Wells for Storage – 0.02 0.01 0.01 (0.50) (0.50) (0.50) – 0.05 – 0.03 0.03 0.05 (0.50) (0.15) 0.25
Development
Organic Phase Change
Materials 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) – (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) – (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) –
System Modeling and
Deployment Design/Operation
Optimization 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.02 (0.10) (0.20) (0.15) 0.05 (0.10) (0.20) (0.13) 0.05 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) 0.00
Demonstration Projects 0.04 0.20 0.09 0.07 (0.10) (0.20) (0.15) 0.05 0.20 (0.10) (0.03) 0.13 0.20 (0.10) – 0.14
rte = round-trip efficiency, bpc = balance of plant cost, fom = fixed operations and maintenance, vom = variable operations and maintenance
Note that storage block costs are a proxy for 94% of total system costs, whereas balance of plant, which serves as a proxy for the cost
of cavern storage, is roughly 6% of total system costs.

References
[1] "Wiki - CAES," [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-
air_energy_storage.
[2] E. Borri, A. Tafone, G. Comodi, A. Romagnoli and L. F. Cabeza, "Compressed Air Energy
Storage—An Overview of Research Trends and Gaps through a Bibliometric Analysis,"
Energies, vol. 15, p. 7692, 2022.
[3] E. Bazdar, M. Sameti, F. Nasiri and F. Haghighat, "Compressed air energy storage in
integrated energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 167,
2022.
[4] A. G. Olabi, T. Wilberforce, M. Ramadan and M. A. Abdelkareem, "Compressed air energy
storage systems: Components and operating," Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 34, 2021.
[5] G. Dib, P. Haberschill, R. Rulliere, Q. Perroit, S. Davies and R. Revellin, "Thermodynamic
simulation of a micro advanced adiabatic compressed air energy storage for building
application," Applied Energy, vol. 260, 2020.
[6] S. Sadeghi and I. B. Askari, "Prefeasibility techno-economic assessment of a hybrid power
plant with photovoltaic, fuel cell and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)," Energy, vol.
168, 2019.
[7] V. Viswanathan, K. Mongrid, R. Franks, X. Li and V. Sprenkle, "2022 Grid Energy Storage
Technical Cost and Performance Assessment. PNNL-33283.," Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, WA., 2022.
[8] K. Maxie, "engineering.com," [Online]. Available: https://www.engineering.com/story/testing-
the-worlds-most-powerful-gas-turbine.
[9] L. Blain, "New Atlas," [Online]. Available: https://newatlas.com/aircraft/rolls-royce-ultrafan-
test/.
[10] J. R. Bowersox, J. B. Hickman and K. A. Skeese, Assessing Compressed Air Energy Storage
(CAES) Potential in Kentucky to Augment Energy Production from Renewable Resources,
2022.
[11] T. K. J. M. a. M. B. A. Kebede, "A comprehensive review of stationary energy storage devices
for large scale renewable energy sources grid integration.," Renewable and Sutainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 159, no. 112213, 2022.
[12] P. Perazzelli and G. Anagnostou, "Design issues for compressed air energy storage in sealed
underground cavities," Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 8, pp.
314-328, 2016.
[13] Z. Jiang, P. Li, D. Tang and H. Zhao, "Experimental and numerical investigations of
small-scale lined rock cavern at shallow depth for compressed air energy storage," Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 53, p. 2671–2683, 2020.

[14] H. Yu, S. Engelkemier and E. Gencer, "Process improvements and multi-objective

optimization of compressed air energy storage (CAES) system," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 335, p. 130081, 2022.
[15] L. Chen, T. Zheng, S. Mei, X. Xue, B. Liu and Q. Lu, "Review and prospect of compressed air
energy storage system," J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy, vol. 4(4), p. 529, 2016.
[16] "American Clean Power," [Online]. Available: https://energystorage.org/policies-
issues/states/states-in-the-spotlight/.
[17] EPA.gov, "Draft Recommendations On: Justice40 Climate and Economic Justice Screening
Tool & Executive Order 12898 Revisions," 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
05/documents/whejac_draft_recommendations_on_the_justice40_climate_and_economic_ju
stice_screening_tool_and_executive_order_12898_revisions.pdf.
[18] R. M. Valenti, "Kansas Corporation Commission," 2010. [Online]. Available:
https://kcc.ks.gov/images/PDFs/oil-gas/conservation/caes_06162010.pdf.
[19] "Kansas Legislative Sessions," [Online]. Available:
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/statute/066_000_0000_chapter/066_012_0000_article/06
6_012_0072_section/066_012_0072_k/.

Technology Strategy Assessment On Compressed Air Energy Storage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology Strategy Assessment On Compressed Air Energy Storage

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

Technology Strategy Assessment On Compressed Air Energy Storage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology

You can read more about SI 2030 at https://www.energy.gov/oe/storage-innovations-2030.

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page ii

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page iii

Current Commercial Usage

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 1

Figure 1. Simplified schematic of a CAES process

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 2

• The scale of the application (e.g., individual factory, grid)

Figure 2. CAES systems classifications (adapted from [3])

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 3

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 4

Innovation Category Innovation

Figure 3. Portfolio frequency distribution across LCOS

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 5

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 6

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 7

Figure 5. Innovation representation in the top 10% of the portfolios

Pre-Competitive R&D Opportunities

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 8

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 9

Balancing Power and Energy

Characterization of Storage Resources

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 10

Thermal Energy Storage

Advanced Materials Development

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 11

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 12

Regulatory and Fiscal Policies

The Impact of Investment in CAES

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 13

Additional Opportunities and Discussion

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 14

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 15

DOE/OE-0037 - Compressed-Air Energy Storage Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 16

Appendix A: Industry Contributors

Donald Paul University of Southern California

Iraj Ershaghi University of Southern California

Ramachandra Shenoy Themes LLC

Ashok Krishna Themes LLC

Ben Hoffman Themes LLC

Masood Parvania University of Utah

Joe Spease WindSoHy, LLC

John Yan Talos Industries

Chris Connors Breeze Inc.

Deni Wiart Breeze Inc.

Michael Orsha Breeze Inc.

Robert Bailie Siemens Energy, Inc.

Jason Kerth Siemens Energy, Inc.

Jack Farley Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage, LLC

Stephen Naeve Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage, LLC

Tri Luu Hydrostor Inc.

Andrew McGillis Hydrostor Inc.

Mark Howitt Storelectric Limited

Seamus Garvey Nottingham University

Eric Loth University of Virginia

Pirouz Kahvepour University of California at Los Angeles

Perry Li University of Minnesota

Benjamin Bollinger Malta, Inc.