Energy: Manal Alsha, Yusuf Bicer

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 18

Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Thermodynamic performance comparison of various energy storage


systems from source-to-electricity for renewable energy resources
Manal AlShafi*, Yusuf Bicer
Division of Sustainable Development (DSD), College of Science and Engineering (CSE), Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU), Qatar Foundation (QF),
Education City, Doha, Qatar

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study discusses and thermodynamically analyzes several energy storage systems, namely; pumped-
Received 9 July 2020 hydro, compressed air, hot water storage, molten salt thermal storage, hydrogen, ammonia, lithium-ion
Received in revised form battery, Zn-air battery, redox flow battery, reversible fuel cells, supercapacitors, and superconducting
6 December 2020
magnetic storage through the first and second law of thermodynamics. By fixing an electrical output of
Accepted 14 December 2020
Available online 16 December 2020
100 kW for all systems, the energy efficiencies obtained for the considered energy storage methods vary
between 10.9% and 74.6% whereas, the exergy efficiencies range between 23.1% and 71.9%. The exergy
destruction rates are also calculated for each system ranging from 1.640 kW to 356 kW. The highest
Keywords:
Electricity storage
destruction rate is obtained for the solar-driven molten salt thermal energy storage system since it in-
Electrochemical cludes thermal energy conversion via the heliostat field. Furthermore, the roundtrip efficiencies for the
Thermal electrochemical and electromagnetic storage systems are compared with the analyzed systems, ranging
Mechanical from 58% to 94%. Renewable sources (solar, wind, ocean current, biomass, and geothermal) energy
Renewable conversion efficiencies are also considered for the final round-trip performances. The molten salt and hot
Chemical water systems are applicable to solar, geothermal, and biomass. The highest source-to-electricity effi-
ciency is obtained for the super magnetic storage with 37.6% when using wind, ocean current, and
biomass sources.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction conventional, adiabatic, and hydrogen-fueled. The adiabatic com-


pressed air was the most efficient option as the system’s exergy
Electricity plays an essential role when economic development efficiency was obtained as 69.5%. A hybrid thermal-compressed air
is concerned. Therefore, convenient storage and usage of energy are energy storage system for the integration of wind power was
critical. Due to the unpredicted behavior of renewable sources, the proven to yield higher wind power by theoretical thermodynamic
benefits of these systems (fuel savings, costs, emissions, and effi- analyses than advanced adiabatic compressed air energy storage
ciency) could be reachable if these systems are integrated with (AA-CAES) system with the same scale of turbines, compressors,
proper energy storage units [1]. To overcome this issue, there are and thermal energy storage units. The recovery efficiency for this
attempts to find suitable operation strategies for energy storage extra wind power was between 41% and 47%, depending on the
units by considering several factors such as charging/discharging final storage temperature of the thermal energy storage (TES) unit
time, cost, efficiency, etc. [1]. [3].
Integration of renewable sources with energy storage units be- The use of ammonia and hydrogen was also investigated as
comes essential for smoother operation. Many thermodynamic renewable energy storage for solar and wind energy sources. Palys
studies were performed for the analysis of different storage- and Daoutidis [4] studied the financial aspects of utilizing
integrated systems. Safaei and Aziz [2] conducted a thermody- ammonia, hydrogen, and combination for islanded renewable en-
namic analysis of three compressed air energy storage systems: ergy storage at 1 MW residential scale in fifteen cities that specify
various power/climate demand regions of the USA. Besides, the
systems utilizing both hydrogen and ammonia outperform those
* Corresponding author. systems that only use a single storage option in terms of Levelized
E-mail addresses: malshafi@hbku.edu.qa (M. AlShafi), ybicer@hbku.edu.qa Cost of Energy (LCOE) ranging from $0.17/kWh and $0.28/kWh, in
(Y. Bicer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119626
0360-5442/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

addition to overall investment in renewable generation infra- storage systems, iii) to assess the energy and exergy efficiencies of
structure [4]. the systems and their components, and iv) to evaluate the overall
Safaei and Aziz [5] conducted a thermodynamic analysis for performance of the energy storage systems for renewable inte-
compressed air energy storage (CAES) facility exporting compres- gration, v) to conduct a sensitivity analysis on the significant
sion heat for an external heat load. The thermodynamic analysis operating parameters.
showed that waste heat recovery improves the compressed air
storage’s exergy efficiency from 54% to 84%. Another thermody-
2. Energy storage systems (ESS)
namic study by Liu et al. [6] used an energy storage system of
compressed carbon dioxide utilizing two saline aquifers at various
In Fig. 1, various energy storage systems considered in this study
depths as storage reservoirs. According to exergy and energy
are presented. To understand how each energy storage technique
analysis, the proposed system had a roundtrip efficiency of 53.02%
behaves, schematic diagrams for all systems are also presented.
for transcritical CO2 and 51.56% for the supercritical CO2, and the
These storage methods were adequately defined and ranked based
energy efficiency was 63.35% for transcritical CO2 and 62.28% for
on critical criteria (energy density, water usage, temperature
the supercritical CO2. In contrast, the conventional CAES roundtrip
degradation, and location dependency) for hot and arid climate
efficiency was 81.7%. Thomas and Thomas [7] studied an integrated
implementation in our previous study [16]. However, in the current
system consisting of the Rankine Cycle (RC) and liquefied natural
study, our aim is to assessthermodynamic energy conversion effi-
gas (LNG) power generation system utilizing direct expansion. The
ciencies from source-to-electricity. The general technical specifi-
results showed that their proposed cycle performed with an exergy
cations of energy storage systems are presented in Table 1. The
efficiency of 37.25%. Gopal et al. [8] studied a diesel engine inte-
amount of energy extracted from an energy storage system (i.e.,
grated with a phase change material (PCM) energy storage system.
capacity) is ranged from small to large scales for several storage
Their thermodynamic analysis showed that 6.13% of overall fuel
methods as provided in Table 1. Some of the storage methods are
energy is stored using the thermal energy storage system. The in-
more suitable for large scale energy storage, such as pumped hydro
tegrated system energy efficiency varies between 3.19% and 34.15%,
and compressed air, whereas some are more convenient for small
whereas the exergy efficiency ranges from 0.25% to 27.41%.
scales, such as lithium-ion battery and Zn-air battery. In this study,
It was observed that high roundtrip efficiencies for the pumped
we selected a medium scale of 100 kW, which is typical for most of
hydro systems could be obtainable while concurrently acquiring
them.
energy storage densities of 200 MJ/m3 [9]. Khazaeli et al. [10]
This study’s boundaries are given in Fig. 2, considering the
conducted a thermodynamic analysis and numerical investigation
sources, systems, and services. The energy source for the consid-
for the effects of electrolyte flow rate on all vanadium redox flow
ered storage systems can be any renewable such as wind, solar,
batteries (VRFB) performance. The electricity storage energy effi-
ocean, geothermal, and biomass energy. The typical output ob-
ciency using VRFB was observed to have a minimum of 61% storage
tained from all these systems is electricity. Selected storage systems
efficiency, where average exergy and energy efficiencies were
are analyzed using thermodynamics’ first and second laws. The
about 86% and 76%, respectively. Guizzi et al. [11] performed a
analysis is performed using the Engineering Equation Solver (EES)
thermodynamic analysis of a liquid air energy storage (LAES) unit
software by assuming steady state and steady flow conditions for
with a roundtrip efficiency ranging from 54 to 55% with conser-
all systems [26]. The electricity output for all systems is fixed to
vative and reasonable key parameters. They emphasized that, in
100 kW electricity for better and just comparison purposes. The
LAES, cryoturbine of the liquefaction unit is the most important
reference state temperature and pressure are assumed to be 30  C
element.
and 101.3 kPa, respectively; however, it is varied in the sensitivity
Olabi et al. [12] compared different storage systems: Flywheels,
analysis.
supercapacitors, and batteries, discussing the limitations and sug-
gestions for enhancing these systems’ overall performances.
Whereas Lepszy [13] has focused on analyzing storage system pa- 2.1. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES)
rameters based on Poland’s energy market prices. In contrast, the
relations among the discharging and charging system power and The pumped hydro system consists of four main components:
storage times concerning profit were as well indicated. In a recent the lower reservoir, pump, upper reservoir, and a water turbine. The
study by Koohi-Fayegh and Rosen [14], energy storage types were main working fluid of the system is water. This system stores en-
reviewed, concentrating on technological factors and operating ergy in the form of the gravitational potential energy of water, as it
principles through comparing and reviewing the applications, is pumped from a lower elevation to a higher elevation of the
economic, and technical aspects [14]. Mostafa et al. [15] have reservoir. The force coming from water can drive water turbines to
focused on overviewing high-medium-low energy storage tech- produce electricity, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
niques, applications, benefits, cost models, mathematical formula- The main properties of PHES are shown in Table 2. The analysis
tions, and sensitivity analysis for dominant factors that impact considered the following assumptions to obtain the results:
storage costs. In contrast to literature, this paper does not only have
a comprehensive energy storage comparison for various renew-  The mass flow rate for this system is 135 kg/s.
ables but also performs a thermodynamic assessment of several  Lower and upper reservoirs are ideal
energy storage systems to reveal the exergy destruction, entropy  The height of the upper reservoir is 100 m from the lower one
generation, and exergy efficiencies from source-to-electricity.  The isentropic efficiency of the pump is 85%
Moreover, a parametric study is performed to investigate the ef-  The generator efficiency is 95%
fects of significant operating parameters on the overall perfor-
mance. In this regard, the specific objectives of this paper are The main components of this system are the pump and the
written as follows: i) to determine the prospective energy storage water turbine. This system stores energy in the form of the gravi-
techniques for renewables with minimal loss and higher efficiency, tational potential energy of water. A pump is used for pumping
ii) to conduct a thermodynamic analysis of the considered energy water from a lower elevation to a higher elevation of the reservoir.
As for the turbine, it is the main component that produces

2
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Fig. 1. Energy storage systems considered in this study.

Table 1
General technical specifications of energy storage techniques (data from Ref. [16e25]).

ESS Type Technical Maturity Efficiency Ranges (%) Capacity (kW, MWh or MW)

Pumped Hydro Mature 65e85% 100 kW [19], 95 MW [16], 1650 MW [20]


Compressed Air Developed 40e65% 2 kW [21], 100e500 kW [22], 5e300 MW [23]
Lithium-ion Battery Mature 85e95% 0e100 MW [24], 0.05e100 MW [23]
Zn-air Battery R&D Demonstration ~50% 0e0.1 MW [16]
Commercial
Redox Flow Batteries Developed 60e85% 1.1e10 MW [23], 25 kWe10 MW [16], 15 MW-120 MWh [25]
Hydrogen Storage R&D Demonstration 30e70% 0e50 MW [24], 0.3e50 MW [23], <50 MW [20]
Commercial
Ammonia Storage R&D Demonstration 30e70% kW to MW [16]
Commercial
Reversible Fuel Cell R&D Demonstration 50e70% 100 kW [25], kW to MW [16]
Pre-commercial/commercial
Super Magnetic Storage R&D Demonstration 90e95% 0.1e10 MW [24], 1 MWe1000 MW [16]
Pre-commercial
Super Capacitor R&D Demonstration 90e95% 50e100 kW [25], 0e0.5 MW [24]
Pre-commercial
Hot Water Storage R&D Demonstration 20e90% 0.001e10 MW [16], 0.1e300 MW [24]
Commercial
Molten Salt Thermal Storage R&D Demonstration 30e95% kW to MW [16], 0.1e300 MW [24]
Commercial

electricity. The balance equations for both components are shown


_ _
in Table 3. W out;electrical;turbine ¼ W out;mechanical  hturbine  hgenerator (4)
Here,
The overall round-trip efficiency of the PHES is obtained as
follows:
Enpotential ¼ m_ 1  g  Rheight (1)
W_
out;turbine
_
hen;ex ¼ _
(5)
W out;mechanical W in;pump
hex;turbine ¼   (2)
m3 ex3 þ g  Rheight  m_ 4 ex4
_

  2.2. Compressed air energy storage (CAES)


m_ 2 ex2 þ g  Rheight  m_ 1 ex1
hex;pump ¼ _
(3) The compressed air storage system consists of a compressor,
W in;pump
cooling stage, a compressed air storage unit, and a gas turbine. CAES
converts electrical energy into high pressure compressed air that is
3
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Fig. 2. Schematic sketch of source-to-electricity energy conversion systems.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of PHES.

Table 2 later released to produce electricity by driving a gas turbine


PHES state point properties. generator, as shown in Fig. 4. For instance, when the wind blows,
State point 0 1 2 3 4 power can be produced by a wind turbine; however, using this

T ( C) 30 30 30 30 30
system, power can be produced even when there is no wind since
P (kPa) 101.3 101.3 146.5 146.5 101.3 the energy is stored as compressed air.
h (kJ/kg) 125.8 125.8 125.9 125.9 125.8 For the CAES, the main properties of this system are shown in
s (kJ/kg) 0.4367 0.4367 0.4368 0.4367 0.4367 Table 4. The following assumptions are made to analyze the system:
ex (kJ/kg) e 0 0.04535 0.04535 0
_
m(kg/s) e 135 135 135 135
 The mass flow rate of air is 0.525 kg/s
 The pressure ratio of the compressor is 8
 The isentropic efficiency of the compressor is 85%

4
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 3
The balance equations for PHES components.

System MBE EBE EnBE ExBE


Components

Pump m_ 1 ¼ _
m_ 1 h1 þ W in;pump  hPump ¼ m
_ 2 ðh2 þ g  m_ 1 s1 þ S_generated; pump ¼ _
m_ 1 ex1 þ W in;pump  hPump ¼ m
_ D;Pump
_ 2 ðex2 þ g  Rheight Þ þ Ex
m_ 2 Rheight Þ m_ 2 s2
Water turbine m_ 3 ¼ m_ 3 ðh3 þ g  Rheight Þ ¼ m_ 4 h4 þ m_ 3 s3 þ S_generated;Turbine ¼ W_
out;mechanical
m_ 4 _ m_ 3 ðex3 þ g  Rheight Þ ¼ m_ 4 ex4 þ þ
W out;mechanical m_ 4 s4 hturbine  hgenerator
hturbine  hgenerator _
Ex D;Turbine

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of CAES.

The overall energy and exergy efficiency of the CAES is obtained


Table 4
as follows:
CAES state point properties.

State point 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 W_
hen;ex ¼ _ Turbine (6)
T ( C) 30 30 314.2 267.1 30 227 37.82 W Compressor
P (kPa) 101.3 101.3 810.4 810.4 101.3 729.4 91.17
h (kJ/kg) 303.6 303.6 594 544.9 303.6 503.5 311.5
s (kJ/kg. K) 5.712 5.712 5.789 5.702 5.712 5.653 5.768
ex (kJ/kg) e 0 267.1 244.4 0 218 9.081
m_ (kg/s) e 0.525 0.525 0.525 e 0.525 0.525 2.3. Hot water system

The hot water storage system has five main components: hot
 The loss due to pressure is 10% for the compressed air storage water storage, heat exchanger, steam turbine, condenser, and
unit. pump. Thermal energy is the primary input of this system. This
 There are heat losses/rejection for both cooling unit and com- system consists of two cycles; one is for the hot water storage and
pressed air storage unit. heat exchanger, where the hot stream leaves the storage tank and
enters the heat exchanger, where cold water re-enters the hot
The main components of CAES are the compressor, cooling unit, water storage tank, making a cycle. An external heat supply (from
underground storage unit, and turbine. The cooling unit reduces renewables such as solar collectors) is required to provide heat to
the air temperature. Once energy is stored by compressing the air, it the storage tank. The organic Rankine cycle includes four main
is later stored in an underground cavern or an air storage tank. components: a heat exchanger, pump, condenser, and steam tur-
Electricity is produced in this system by driving a gas turbine. Note bine. The working fluid of this system is selected as n-pentane. The
that if there is a heat source available, it can preheat the air before fluid goes from the heat exchanger and gets into the steam turbine.
the turbine to increase the power output. The balance equations for After expanding for producing electricity , it enters the condenser,
these components are shown in Table 5. pump, and water, and returns to the heat exchanger, as clearly
illustrated in Fig. 5. The balance equations for these components are

Table 5
The balance equations for CAES components.

System Components MBE EBE EnBE ExBE

Compressor m_ 1 ¼ m_ 1 h1 þ W_ _ 2 h2
Compressor ¼ m m_ 1 s1 þ S_gen;Compressor ¼ m_ 2 s2 m_ 1 ex1 þ W_ _
_ 2 ex2 þ Ex
Compressor ¼ m D;Compressor
m_ 2
m_ 2 ¼ 
Cooling unit m_ 2 h2 ¼ m_ 3 h3 þ Q_ out Q_ T _
m_ 3 m_ 2 s2 þ S_gen;Cooling ¼ m_ 3 s3 þ out m_ 2 ex2 ¼ m_ 3 ex3 þ Q_ out 1  0 þ Ex
T0 T0 D;Cooling
 
Underground storage m_ 3 ¼ m_ 3 h3 ¼ m_ 5 h5 þ m_ 3 s3 þ S_gen;Underground ¼ m_ 5 s5 þ T
m_ 3 ex3 ¼ m_ 5 ex5 þ Q_ out;Underground 1  0 þ
unit m_ 5 Q_ T5
out;Underground Q_ out;Underground
Ex_
T5 D;Underground

Turbine m_ 5 ¼ _
m_ 5 h5 ¼ m_ 6 h6 þ W Turbine m_ 5 s5 þ S_gen;Turbine ¼ m_ 6 s6 m_ 5 ex5 ¼ m_ 6 ex6 þ W_ _
Turbine þ ExD;Turbine
m_ 6

5
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

for these components are shown in Table 7.


The overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the hot water
storage are obtained as follows:

_ _
W Turbine  W in;pump
hen ¼ _
(7)
Q in;hotstorage

_ _
W Turbine  W in;pump
hex ¼   (8)
Q_ in;hotstorage 1  Tsource
T0

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of hot water storage.

2.4. Molten salt thermal storage system


Table 6
Hot water storage state point properties.
The molten salt system has seven main components: solar he-
State point 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 liostat field and tower, cold tank, heat exchanger, hot tank, pump,
T ( C) 30 92 70 90 55.98 32.43 32.60 condenser, and steam turbine. Generally, it includes a Rankine cycle
P (kPa) 101.3 101.3 101.3 450 90 90 450 that is powered by solar energy. This system uses the sun’s irradi-
h (kJ/kg) 125.8 385.5 293.1 468.3 417.9 15.25 15.94 ance to heat a circulating fluid (molten salt) via a heliostat field.
s (kJ/kg. K) 0.4367 1.216 0.9551 1.336 1.363 0.05137 0.05171
This heat converts liquid water into a vapor and then passes
ex (kJ/kg) e 23.43 10.16 63.62 4.976 e e
_
m(kg/s) e 9.8 9.8 2.001 2.001 2.001 2.001 through a turbine, producing energy, as shown in Fig. 6. The main
renewable source is initially considered solar energy. In efficiency
comparison, geothermal and biomass thermal energy sources are
also evaluated for overall efficiency calculations.
shown in Table 6.
The molten salt storage system state point properties are shown
The followings are the assumptions for hot water storage unit:
in Table 8, and the followings are the system assumptions:
 The mass flow rate of the water is 9.8 kg/s
 The mass flow rate of the molten salt is 1.08 kg/s
 The isentropic efficiency for the turbine and pump is 85%
 The thermal efficiency of the heliostat field is 75%
 The mass flow rate for the n-pentane is 2 kg/s
 The sun surface temperature is 5778 K
 The source temperature is equal to the first state point
 The average irradiance is 600 W/m2
temperature.

The solar power tower converts the sunshine into clean elec-
The hot water storage system’s main components are a heat
tricity, as it utilizes heliostats, so it focuses sunlight on a receiver at
exchanger, steam turbine, condenser, and pump. The heat
the top of a tower. The heat exchanger helps to increase the molten
exchanger increases the fluid temperature that runs within the
salt temperature that runs within the first cycle, as shown in Fig. 6.
organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Then, it enters the steam turbine to
Once the water temperature that flows in the Rankine cycle is
produce electricity. The condenser converts the vapor into liquid by
increased, it enters the steam turbine to produce electricity. Later,
heat rejection. Electrical work is required to pressurize the fluid
the vapor is condensed at the condenser as a result of heat rejec-
back to the heat exchanger, where cold water enters the hot water
tion. The balance equations for these components are shown in
storage once again to complete the process. The balance equations
Table 9.

Table 7
The balance equations for the hot water storage components.

System MBE EBE EnBE ExBE


Component
_   
Hot water m_ 1 ¼ m_ 2 h2 þ Q_ in;hotstorage ¼ m_ 1 h1 Q in;hotstorage T0
m_ 2 s2 þ þ S_gen;hotwater ¼ m_ 1 s1 m_ 2 ex2 þ Q_ in;hotstorage 1  _
¼ m_ 1 ex1 þ Ex
storage m_ 2 Tsource Tsource D;hotstorage

Heat m_ 6 ¼ m_ 1 h1 þ m_ 6 h6 ¼ _
m_ 1 s1 þ m_ 6 s6 þ Sgen;heatexchanger ¼ m_ 2 s2 þ m_ 3 s3 þ _
m_ 1 ex1 þ m_ 6 ex6 ¼ m_ 2 ex2 þ m_ 3 ex3 þ Ex D;heatexchanger þ
m_ 3  
exchanger m_ 2 h2 þm_ 3 h3þ Q_ loss;heatexchanger Q_ T
loss;heatexchanger Q_ loss;heatexchanger 1 0
T0 T0
Steam turbine m_ 3 ¼ _
m_ 3 h3 ¼ m_ 4 h4 þ W Turbine m_ 3 s3 þ S_gen;Turbine ¼ m_ 4 s4 m_ 3 ex3 ¼ m_ 4 ex4 þ W_ _
Turbine þ ExD;Turbine
m_ 4
 
Condenser m_ 4 ¼ m_ 4 h4 ¼ m_ 5 h5 þ Q_ out;condenser Q_ out;condenser T
m_ 4 s4 þ S_gen;condenser ¼ m_ 5 s5 þ m_ 4 ex4 ¼ m_ 5 ex5 þ Q_ out;condenser 1  0 þ Ex
_
m_ 5 T5 T5 D;condenser

Pump m_ 5 ¼ m_ 5 h5 þ W_ _ 6 h6
in;pump ¼ m m_ 5 s5 þ S_generated; pump ¼ m_ 6 s6 _
m_ 5 ex5 þ W _ D;Pump
_ 6 ex6 þ Ex
in;pump ¼ m
m_ 6

6
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of molten salt thermal energy storage.

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of hydrogen storage system.

Table 8
The molten salt thermal storage state point properties.

State point 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

T ( C) 30 460 252 e e 450 253 40.91 440 45.81 40.81
P (kPa) 101.3 120 120 e e 120 120 1500 4700 10 10
h (kJ/kg) 125.8 319.5 3.107 e e 304.3 4.627 172.7 3298 2331 170.9
s (kJ/kg. K) 0.4367 0.5132 0.00555 e e 0.492 0.0083 0.584 6.821 7.356 0.583
ex (kJ/kg) e 246.8 84.34 e e 237.8 85.02 2.205 1237 107.6 0.694
_
m(kg/s) e 1.08 1.08 e e 1.08 1.08 0.1036 0.1036 0.1036 0.1036

7
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 9
The balance equations for the molten salt thermal storage components.

System MBE EBE EnBE ExBE


Components
_   
Solar tower m_ 2 ¼ m_ 1 m_ 2 h2 þ Q_ in;Solar ¼ m_ 1 h1 Q in;Solar T
m_ 2 s2 þ þ S_gen;Solar ¼ m_ 1 s1 m_ 2 ex2 þ Q_ in;Solar 1  0 _
¼ m_ 1 ex1 þ Ex D;Solar
Tsun Tsun
0 1
Hot tank m_ 1 ¼ m_ 5 m_ 1 h1 ¼ m_ 5 h5 þ Q_ loss;HotTank Q_ loss;HotTank
m_ 1 s1 þ S_gen;HotTank ¼ m_ 5 s5 þ   _ _ B T0
C
T5 þ T0 m_ 1 ex1 ¼ m_ 5 ex5 þ Ex D;HotTank þ Q loss;HotTank @1   A
T5 þ T0
2
2
0 1
Cold tank m_ 6 ¼ m_ 2 m_ 6 h6 ¼ m_ 2 h2 þ Q_ loss;ColdTank Q_ loss;ColdTank
m_ 6 s6 þ S_gen;ColdTank ¼ m_ 2 s2 þ   _ _ B T0
C
T2 þ T0 m_ 6 ex6 ¼ m_ 2 ex2 þ Ex D;ColdTank þ Q loss;ColdTank @1   A
T2 þ T0
2
2
Heat exchanger m_ 5 ¼ m_ 6 , m_ 5 h5 þ m_ 7 h7 ¼ m_ 6 h6 þ m_ 8 h8 m_ 5 s5 þ m_ 7 s7 þ S_gen;HX ¼ m_ 6 s6 þ m_ 8 s8 m_ 5 ex5 þ m_ 7 ex7 ¼ m_ ex þ m_ ex þ Ex
6 6 8 8
_ D;HX
m_ 7 ¼ m_ 8
Turbine m_ 8 ¼ m_ 9 m_ 8 h8 ¼ m_ 9 h9 þ W _
Turbine m_ 8 s8 þ S_gen;Turbine ¼ m_ 9 s9 _
m_ 8 ex8 ¼ m_ 9 ex9 þ W _
Turbine þ ExD;Turbine
0 1
Condenser m_ 9 ¼ m_ 9 h9 ¼ m_ 10 h10 þ m_ 9 s9 þ S_gen;condenser ¼ m_ 10 s10 þ
B T0
C
m_ 10 Q_ out;condenser Q_ out;condenser m_ 9 ex9 ¼ m_ 10 ex10 þ Q_ out;condenser @1   Aþ
  T2 þ T0
T2 þ T0 2
2 Ex_
D;condenser
Pump m_ 10 ¼ m_ 10 h10 þ W_ _ 7 h7
in;pump ¼ m m_ 10 s10 þ S_generated; pump ¼ m_ 7 s7 m_ 10 ex10 þ W_ _ D;Pump
_ 7 ex7 þ Ex
in;pump ¼ m
m_ 7

gaseous hydrogen, entering the hydrogen fuel cell. As the air leaves
_ net ¼ W_ _
W Turbine  W in;pump (9) the compressor, it enters the cooler unit to decrease the air tem-
perature, and it enters the hydrogen fuel cell. The reaction of both
W_ net air and gaseous hydrogen in the fuel cell produces the electrical
hen;RC ¼ (10) output along with nitrogen and water.
m_ 5 h5  m_ 6 h6
The hydrogen storage system state point properties are shown
in Table 10, and the following assumptions are considered for
W_ net
hex;RC ¼ (11) calculations:
m_ 5 ex5  m_ 6 ex6
 The mass flow rate is calculated by considering 98 kg stored in
The overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the molten salt
the hydrogen storage tank (24 h operation considered)
storage are obtained as follows:
 The hydrogen fuel cell has a 30% heat loss.
W_  The isentropic efficiency of the compressor is 85%
hen ¼ _ net (12)  7.5% mass loss is assumed for hydrogen storage tank
Q in;Solar
The main components of this system are a hydrogen storage
W_ net tank, compressor, cooler, fuel cell. This system results in two out-
hex ¼   (13)
puts: the main output, electricity, and the other is the stream of
Q_ in;Solar 1  TTsun
0
nitrogen and water. The heat output is not utilized. All balance
equations for this system are as shown in Table 11.
The hydrogen storage system efficiencies are obtained as
follows:
2.5. Hydrogen storage

The hydrogen storage system includes a hydrogen storage tank,


_ _
hydrogen fuel cell, cooler unit, and compressor. The primary input W hydrogenFC  W Compressor
of this system is chemical energy. The main flows of the system are hen ¼ _
(14)
E en;chemical;in
hydrogen and air, with two main outputs, as shown in Fig. 7. The
chemical energy is stored in the hydrogen storage, and it leaves as

Table 10
Hydrogen storage state point properties.

State point 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T ( C) 30 30 30 30 60 e 30 369.9 90
P (kPa) 101.3 101.3 810.4 810.4 101.3 e 101.3 1100 1100
h (kJ/kg) 125.8 124,008 124,003 124,008 321 e 303.4 652.8 362.5
s (kJ/kg. K) 0.4367 43.41 53.61 43.77 4.886 e 6.875 6.96 6.369
ex (kJ/kg) e 120,214 117,115 120,104 314.8 e 46.36 370 259
_
m(kg/s) e 0.001134 0.000085 0.001049 0.00919 e 0.0081 0.0081 0.0081

8
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 11
The balance equations for the hydrogen storage components.

System MBE EBE EnBE ExBE


Components

Hydrogen m_ 1 ¼ m_ 1 h1 ¼ m_ 2 h2 þ m_ 3 h3 m_ 1 s1 þ S_gen;hydrogenstorage ¼ m_ 2 s2 þ m_ 3 s3 m_ 1 ex1 ¼ m_ 2 ex2 þ m_ 3 ex3 þ Ex


_
D;hydrogenstorage
storage m_ 2 þ _m3
Compressor m_ 6 ¼ m_ 7 _
m_ 6 h6 þ W _ 7 h7
Compressor ¼ m m_ 6 s6 þ S_gen;Compressor ¼ m_ 7 s7 m_ 6 ex6 þ W_
Compressor ¼ m
_
_ 7 ex7 þ Ex D;Compressor
 
Cooler unit m_ 7 ¼ m_ 8 m_ h ¼ m_ h þ Q_ Q_ _ T _
7 7 8 8 out;cooler
m_ 7 s7 þ S_gen;cooler ¼ m_ 8 s8 þ
out;cooler m_ 7 ex7 ¼ m_ 8 ex8 þ Q out;cooler 1  0 þ Ex D;cooler
Tavg Tavg
 
Hydrogen fuel m_ 3 þ _ _
m_ 3 h3 þ m_ 8 h8 ¼ m_ 4 h4 þ W hydrogenFC þ m_ 3 s3 þ m_ 8 s8 þ Sgen;hydrogenFC ¼ ¼ _m4 s4 þ m T
_ 3 ex3 þ m_ 8 ex8 ¼ m _ 4 ex4 þ Q_ out;cooler 1  0 þ
cells m_ 8 ¼ m_ 4 Tavg
Q_ out;hydrogenFC Q_ out;hydrogenFC
_ _
Tavg W hydrogenFC þ ExD;hydrogenFC

 The isentropic efficiency for the compressor is 85%


_ _
W hydrogenFC  W Compressor  5% mass loss for ammonia storage is considered.
hex ¼
_
(15)
E ex;chemical;in
The main components of the ammonia system are liquid
where ammonia storage tank, evaporator, compressor, cooler unit, and
ammonia fuel cell. The balance equations are shown in
 
E_ en;chemical;in ¼ m_ 1 LHVH2 (16) Table 13.where:

  T0 þ T8
E_ ex;chemical;in ¼ m_ 1 exphH2 þ exchH2 (17) Tavg ¼
2
(18)

The ammonia system efficiencies are obtained as formulated in


the following equations:

2.6. Ammonia storage _ _


W AmmoniaFC  W Compressor
hen ¼ (19)
Ammonia is an energy carrier, and it has decent storage char- E_ en;chemical;in
acteristics when it comes to both pressure and temperature. It is
liquid at ambient pressure and about 34  C. It can be used for grid _ _
W AmmoniaFC  W Compressor
power balancing and as a renewable energy time shift. The main hex ¼ _
(20)
difference from the hydrogen system is the ammonia storage in E ex;chemical;in
liquid form. Hence, it has an evaporator that converts the liquid
ammonia into gaseous ammonia since this fuel cell is designed for where
gaseous ammonia, as shown in Fig. 8.
The main properties of ammonia are shown in Table 12, and the E_ en;chemical;in ¼ m_ 1 LHVNH3 (21)
assumptions for the analysis are as follows:
 
 The mass flow rate is calculated by considering 600 kg stored in E_ ex;chemical;in ¼ m_ 1 exphNH3 þ exchNH3 (22)
the ammonia storage tank (24 h operation considered)
 The ammonia fuel cell has 30% heat loss.

Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of ammonia storage system.

9
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 12
Ammonia storage system state point properties.

State point 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T ( C) 30 20 30 20 30 80 30 369.9 90
P (kPa) 101.3 1200 101.3 1100 1100 1100 101.3 1100 1100
h (kJ/kg) 125.8 18,894 20,157 18,894 20,091 353.4 303.4 652.8 362.5
s (kJ/kg K) 0.4367 1.327 6.638 1.328 5.306 4.21 6.875 6.96 6.396
ex (kJ/kg) e 20,187 19,841 20,187 20,179 364 49.09 372.8 261.8
_
m(kg/s) e 0.0069 0.00034 0.0065 0.0065 0.0154 0.0088 0.0088 0.0088

Table 13
The balance equations for the ammonia storage system components.

System MBE EBE EnBE ExBE


Components

Ammonia m_ 1 ¼ m_ 1 h1 ¼ m_ 2 h2 þ m_ 3 h3 m_ 1 s1 þ S_gen;NH3storage ¼ m_ 2 s2 þ m_ 3 s3 _
m_ 1 ex1 ¼ m_ 2 ex2 þ m_ 3 ex3 þ Ex D;NH3storage
storage m_ 2 þ _m3
Compressor m_ 6 ¼ m_ 7 _
m_ 6 h6 þ W _ 7 h7
Compressor ¼ m m_ 6 s6 þ S_gen;Compressor ¼ m_ 7 s7 m_ 6 ex6 þ W _
Compressor ¼ m
_
_ 7 ex7 þ Ex D;Compressor
 
Cooler unit m_ 7 ¼ m_ 8 m_ h ¼ m_ h þ Q_ Q_ out;cooler T
7 7 8 8 out;cooler
m_ 7 s7 þ S_gen;cooler ¼ m_ 8 s8 þ m_ 7 ex7 ¼ m_ 8 ex8 þ Q_ out;cooler 1  0 þ Ex _
D;cooler
Tavg Tavg
 
Evaporator m_ 3 ¼ m_ 4 m_ 3 h3 þ Q_ in;evaporator ¼ m_ 4 h4 Q_ in;evaporator T
m_ 3 s3 þ þ S_gen;evaporator ¼ m_ 3 ex3 þ Q_ in;evaporator 1  0 ¼ m_ 4 ex4 þ Ex _ D;evaporator
T0 T0
¼ _m4 s4
 
Ammonia fuel m_ 4 þ m_ 8 ¼ m_ 4 h4 þ m_ 8 h8 ¼ m_ 5 h5 þ W
_
NH3FC þ m_ 4 s4 þ m_ 8 s8_ þ Sgen;NH3FC ¼ m_ 5 s5 þ T
_ 4 ex4 þ m
m _ 5 ex5 þ Q_ out;cooler 1  0 þ
_ 8 ex8 ¼ m
cells m_ 5 Q_ out;NH3FC Tavg
Q_ out;NH3FC
W_ _
þ Ex
Tavg NH3FC D;NH3FC

2.7. Electrochemical and electromagnetic systems supercapacitors, and superconductors are considered a black box
with one inlet and electrical work outlet as shown in Figs. 9e11. No
The redox flow battery is a system that consists of two elec- chemical reactions complexity are considered in this study. All
trolytes, as chemical compounds are used for storing energy in a system efficiencies are obtained from open literature, and the po-
liquid state, with electrolyte in solution. This system is a limited wer inputs are calculated based on obtained values.
mass system, as the standard capacity of batteries is restricted. Neglecting the chemical complexity of these systems, the
There are various types of electrolytes that have been made by following equation is considered for the overall efficiency:
using bromine as the main element, e.g., with vanadium bromide
(VBr), zinc-bromide (ZnBr), sodium bromide (NaBr), and sodium Electrical energy output
hoverall ¼ (23)
polysulfide. The electricity storage efficiency of this system is in the Electrical energy input
range of 65e85% [27].
As for the electromagnetic systems, the supercapacitors system
components have the characteristics of capacitors. The energy
storage in this system occurs due to an electric field between two 2.8. Reversible fuel cell (RFC) system
electrodes [25]. The storage system can store energy as a magnetic
field generated, and that is through direct current (DC) that is For the RFC, there are two inputs: the electrical work and the
passed through the superconducting coil. It is quick in response, water. The water enters the electrolyzer as chemical reactions occur
and the efficiency is high as it is expected to reach 95%. It can be within the electrolyzer to separate water into hydrogen and oxy-
used for power quality enhancement [28]. This system has many gen. The hydrogen enters the hydrogen storage, whereas the oxy-
discharge/charge cycles [25]. gen enters the oxygen storage. Both hydrogen and oxygen
Lithium-ion battery, Zn-air battery, redox flow batteries, temperatures later slightly increase since the ambient temperature

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram for (a) Zn-air battery and (b) lithium-ion battery.

10
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram for (a) super capacitors and (b) super conductor’s storages.

electrolyzer-fuel cell mode.


For the reversible fuel cell system, the main properties are
shown in Table 14 and the followings are the assumptions for the
system:

 The mass flow rate of the water is 0.0101 kg/s


 The mass loss in the hydrogen tank is 5%.
 The fuel cells have 30% heat loss.

The RFC system’s main components are pump, electrolyzer,


hydrogen storage, oxygen storage, and fuel cell. The pump is used to
Fig. 11. Schematic diagram of redox flow battery storage. pump the water to the electrolyzer. Once water enters the elec-
trolyzer; it is later electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen. The
hydrogen and oxygen leave both hydrogen and oxygen tanks
is greater than the storage temperature. They both are combined in entering the fuel cell. Both are once again combined, yielding water
the fuel cell, producing electricity and forming water, as shown in and producing the electrical output for this reversible fuel cell
Fig. 12. This process can either run on fuel cell-electrolyzer or system. The balance equations are shown in Table 15.

Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of RFC.

Table 14
RFC state point properties.

State point 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T ( C) 30 30 30.06 75 75 70 72 75
P (kPa) 101.3 101.3 1100 1100 1100 1000 1000 1000
h (kJ/kg) e 125.8 127 44.35 124,656 124,728 41.72 314.8
s (kJ/kg. K) e 0.4367 0.4373 0.4811 45.76 45.95 0.464 1.015
ex (kJ/kg) e 49.96 50.96 314.3 120,141 120,012 306.5 63.59
_
m(kg/s) e 0.0101 0.0101 0.008978 0.001122 0.001066 0.008978 0.01004

11
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 15
The balance equations for the RFC storage components.

System MBE EBE EnBE ExBE


Components

Pump m_ 1 ¼ m_ 2 _
m_ 1 h1 þ W in;pump ¼ m _ 2 h2 m_ 1 s1 þ S_generated;pump ¼ m_ 2 s2 _
m_ 1 ex1 þ W in;pump ¼ m
_ D;Pump
_ 2 ex2 þ Ex
Electrolyzer m_ 2 ¼ m_ 3 þ _
_
m_ 2 h2 þ W _ 3 h3 þ m_ 2 s2 þ Sgen;electrolyzer ¼ m_ 3 s3 þ m_ 4 s4 þ _ _
m2 ex2 þ W in;electrolyzer ¼ m3 ex3 þ m_ 4 ex4 þ
_
in;electrolyzer ¼ m 0 1
m_ 4 Q_
m_ h þ Q_
4 4
out;electrolyzer
out;electrolyzer B T0 C
T0þ T4 Q_ out;electrolyzer @1  A þ Ex _
D;electrolyzer
T0þ T4
2
2  
Hydrogen m_ 4 ¼ m_ 4 h4 ¼ m_ 5 h5 þ Q_ loss;H2storage þ h5  m_ 4 s4 þ S_gen;H2storage ¼ m_ 5 s5 þ _ _ T0
m_ 4 ex4 ¼ m_ 5 ex5 þ Ex D;H2storage þ Q loss;H2storagge 1  þ
storage m_ 5 þm_ loss;H2 m_ T0
loss;H2 Q_ loss;H2storage
þ s5 m_ loss;H2 ex5  m_ loss;H2
T0
 
Oxygen m_ 3 ¼ m_ 6 m_ 3 h3 ¼ m_ 6 h6 þ Q_ loss;O2storage m_ 3 s3 þ S_gen;O2storage ¼ m_ 6 s6 þ _ D;O2storage þ Q_ T0
m_ 3 ex3 ¼ m_ 6 ex6 þ Ex loss;O2storage 1 
storage T0
Q_loss;O2storage
T0
0 1
Fuel cells m_ 5 þ m_ 6 ¼ _
m_ 5 h5 þ m_ 6 h6 ¼ m_ 7 h7 þ W out;FC þ m_ 5 s5 þ m_ 6 s6_ þ Sgen;FC ¼ m_ 7 s7 þ
B T C
m_ 7 Q_ Q_ m_ 5 ex5 þ m_ 6 ex6 ¼ m_ 7 ex7 þ Q_ out;FC @ 0 A þ W
_
out;FC þ
out;FC
 out;FC T0þ T5
T0þ T5 2
2 Ex_
D;FC

where Table 16
The main results for PHES.
Q_ out;FC ¼ W_ _
out;FC  0:30 Q lossFC (24) Parameter Value

Potential energy 132.4 kW


Q_ out;electrolyzer ¼ W_ _
in;electrolyzer  0:30 Q losselectrolyzer (25) Work input for the pump 155.1 kW
Work output from the turbine 100.8 kW
The RFC system efficiencies are obtained as follows: Overall energy and exergy efficiency 65%
Exergy destruction rate for the pump 1.077 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the turbine 0.5631 kW
_ _
W out;FC  W in;pump
hen;ex;RFC ¼ _
(26) Entropy generation rate for the pump
Entropy generation rate for the turbine
0.003551 kW/K
0.001858 kW/K
W in;electrolyzer
Output from the mechanical work 118 kW
Exergy efficiency for the pump 89%
Exergy efficiency for the turbine 85%
Total exergy destruction rate of the system 1.64 kW
3. Results and discussion Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.005409 kW/K

All energy storage systems are analyzed using the first and
second laws of thermodynamics. The main results are obtained for Table 17
all storage systems, as discussed in the proceeding sections. For The main results for CAES.

renewable energies, source-to-electricity efficiencies are also Parameter Value


considered to obtain overall efficiencies of storage systems. Heat rejection from the cooling unit 25.8 kW
Heat loss from the air storage tank 21.73 kW
Overall energy and exergy efficiency 66.1%
3.1. PHES Electrical input for the system 152.5 kW
Electrical output from the system 100 kW
From the simulation results obtained for the PHES, the efficiency Exergy destruction rate for the compressor 12.24 kW
of the system is 65%. It is a typical efficiency for this system, as PHES Exergy destruction rate for the turbine 18.37 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the cooling unit 11.93 kW
roundtrip efficiency usually varies within 65e85% [17]. The energy
Exergy destruction rate for the compressed air storage 5.327 kW
and exergy efficiencies are equal as this system adiabatically con- Entropy generation rate for the compressor 0.04037 kW/K
verts the mechanical energy directly to electricity. The pumping Entropy generation rate for the turbine 0.0606 kW
process could affect the net efficiency of the power system. This Entropy generation rate for the cooling unit 0.03939 kW/K
system is known to have excellent development potential, and that Entropy generation rate for the compressed air storage 0.01759 kW/K
Total exergy destruction rate of the system 47.86 kW
is due to the system’s high efficiency and large storage capacity. Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.15795 kW/K
Besides, these results are obtained for 100 kW electrical output, as
shown in Table 16.

3.3. Hot water storage


3.2. CAES
By fixing 100 kW output for the hot water system, the results in
In CAES, both total energy and exergy efficiencies are about Table 18 are obtained. The energy efficiency is 10.9%, and the exergy
66.1% as this system converts the mechanical energy directly to efficiency is 64.6%. In general, if only the storing phase is consid-
electricity, similar to PHES. This system’s typical storage efficiency ered, hot water storage efficiency can range between 50 and 90%
value is within a range of 40e68% [17]. The considered system for [17]. However, an organic Rankine cycle working with low tem-
CAES is not an adiabatic system where losses are considered when perature boiling fluid is considered for power generation since the
obtaining the values. The obtained values are shown in Table 17.
12
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 18 Table 20
The main results for the hot water storage. The main results for the ammonia storage system.

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Overall exergy efficiency 64.6% Overall exergy efficiency 69.3%


Overall energy efficiency 10.9% Overall energy efficiency 74.0%
Exergy destruction rate for the turbine 16.51 kW Chemical energy input for the system 131.2 kW
Exergy destruction rate for heat exchanger 3.982 kW Chemical exergy input for the system 140.2 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the pump 0.2055 kW Thermal input for the evaporator 7.9 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the hot water tank 23.63 kW Heat loss for the cooler unit 2.572 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the condenser 3.535 kW Heat loss for the ammonia fuel cells 30.07 kW
Entropy generation rate for the turbine 0.05447 kW/K Exergy destruction rate for the compressor 0.2277 kW
Entropy generation rate for heat exchanger 0.01313 kW/K Exergy destruction rate for the cooler 0.7519 kW
Entropy generation rate for the pump 0.000677 kW/K Exergy destruction rate for the ammonia storage 0.1214 kW
Entropy generation rate for the hot water tank 0.07674 kW/K Exergy destruction rate for the ammonia fuel cells 28.45 kW
Entropy generation rate for the condenser 0.01296 kW/K Exergy destruction rate for the evaporator 0.05523 kW
Exergy efficiency for the turbine 86% Entropy generation rate for the compressor 0.007513 kW/K
Exergy efficiency for heat exchanger 97% Entropy generation rate for the cooler 0.00248 kW/K
Exergy efficiency for the pump 85% Entropy generation rate for the ammonia storage 0.001846 kW/K
Exergy efficiency for the hot water tank 85% Entropy generation rate for the ammonia fuel cells 0.06527 kW/K
Exergy efficiency for the condenser 64% Entropy generation rate for the evaporator 0.0001822 kW/K
Exergy efficiency for the organic Rankine cycle 76% Electrical input for the compressor 3.095 kW
Energy efficiency for the organic Rankine cycle 11% Electrical output for the system 100 kW
Thermal energy input for the system 905 kW Total exergy destruction rate of the system 28.45 kW
Thermal energy rejected from the condenser 805.6 kW Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.07053 kW/K
Electrical input for the system 1.381 kW
Electrical output from the system 100 kW
Total exergy destruction rate of the system 47.87 kW
Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.158 kW/K
around 75%. The high efficiencies for ammonia are due to the low
value of exergy destruction rates associated with this system
compared to the hydrogen storage system of about 28.45 kW.

final product is electricity. Therefore, the energy efficiency is low,


3.6. Electrochemical and electromagnetic storages
around 11%, similar to other organic Rankine cycle systems such as
geothermal driven cases.
The efficiencies for lithium-ion battery, Zn-air battery, redox
flow batteries, supercapacitors, and superconductors are 90%, 58%,
3.4. Hydrogen storage
68%, 92%, and 94%, respectively [17]. The electrical output is fixed
for 100 kW, and the electrical inputs are calculated for all systems
The efficiencies obtained by thermodynamic analysis are typi-
based on fixed electrical output and obtained efficiencies. The po-
cally high for this system that lie within 50e75% [17]. The exergy
wer input values are 111.1, 172.4, 147.1, 108.7, and 106.4 kW,
efficiency is slightly more than energy efficiency for this system, as
respectively. The highest efficiency among these systems is super-
shown in Table 19. Hydrogen and oxygen are possible to be stored
conductors, while the highest electrical input is the Zn-air battery.
and transported.

3.7. RFC
3.5. Ammonia storage
The energy and exergy efficiencies are equal and are high for this
In the ammonia system, both efficiencies are considered high for
system. This RFC runs in electrolysis mode as it consumes
this system, as shown in Table 20, especially for energy efficiency

Table 21
Table 19 The main results for the RFC.
The main results for hydrogen storage.
Parameter Value
Parameter Value
Overall exergy efficiency 50.4%
Overall exergy efficiency 71.3% Overall energy efficiency 50.4%
Overall energy efficiency 69.1% Electrical input for the pump 0.01192 kW
Chemical energy input for the system 140.7 kW Heat rejected from the fuel cells 30.01 kW
Chemical exergy input for the system 136.4 kW Heat rejected from the oxygen storage 0.02363 kW
Heat rejected from the cooler unit 2.366 kW Heat rejected from the hydrogen storage 0.08165 kW
Heat loss for the hydrogen fuel cells 30.03 kW Exergy destruction rate for the pump 0.001787 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the compressor 0.2095 kW Exergy destruction rate for the fuel cells 1.885 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the cooling unit 0.6916 kW Exergy destruction rate for the electrolyzer 57.33 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the hydrogen fuel cell 23.73 kW Exergy destruction rate for the hydrogen storage 0.1445 kW
Exergy destruction rate for the hydrogen storage 0.3785 kW Exergy destruction rate for the oxygen storage 0.07019 kW
Entropy generation rate for the compressor 0.00069 kW/K Entropy generation rate for the pump 0.001787 kW/K
Entropy generation rate for the cooling unit 0.002282 kW/K Entropy generation rate for the fuel cells 0.05824 kW/K
Entropy generation rate for the hydrogen fuel cells 0.0415 kW/K Entropy generation rate for the electrolyzer 0.2256 kW/K
Entropy generation rate for the hydrogen storage 0.001246 kW/K Entropy generation rate for the hydrogen storage 0.0004767 kW/K
Electrical input for the system 141 kW Entropy generation rate for the oxygen storage 0.0002315 kW/K
Electrical output from the system 100 kW Electrical input for the system 199 kW
Total exergy destruction rate of the system 25.01 kW Electrical output from the system 100 kW
Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.04572 kW/K Total exergy destruction rate of the system 59.43 kW
Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.2845 kW/K

13
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

electricity. Later, the fuel cell operation mode converts chemical and total electrical inputs.
energy directly into electricity without the combustion process.
The main results are given in Table 21.
4.1. Efficiency comparison

3.8. Molten salt thermal storage


The energy and exergy efficiencies for the storage systems are
comparatively presented in Fig. 13 where the electricity/thermal
The molten salt thermal storage results shown in Table 22 are
energy generation from the renewables are not yet accounted for
obtained for an electrical output of 100 kW. The overall energy
(except for the molten salt case). The highest exergy efficiency
efficiency is about 22%, and the exergy efficiency is about 23%. The
among all systems is 71.3% for the hydrogen storage system, and the
high melting point of the salt mixture is one of the drawbacks of
lowest energy efficiency is 10.9% for the hot water storage. The
this system and is a reason for low system efficiency with high
ammonia storage with a fuel cell system has the highest energy
exergy destruction. Since the final product is electricity, the thermal
efficiency of 74.0%. It is expected that both hydrogen and ammonia
storage tanks are integrated into a Rankine cycle. Considering the
systems calculated efficiencies are very close, as they both operate
Rankine cycle efficiencies of lower than 35% and accounting for the
in a very similar way. The hydrogen is slightly higher in exergy
solar tower system efficiencies, the obtained overall efficiency is
efficiency than the ammonia, as the ammonia is 69.9%, and the
reasonable.
hydrogen is 71.3%. The least exergy efficiency is for the molten salt
system as 23.1%.
4. Overall comparison The electrochemical and electromagnetic storage systems have
higher efficiencies than the other systems in terms of efficiencies,
An electrical output value of 100 kW is fixed for all systems to mainly due to direct electricity-to-electricity conversion, as shown
compare all different energy storage systems. The main results for in Fig. 13. In these cases, the source is high-quality electrical work;
all methods are summarized, as shown in Table 23. The other ESS however, in other cases, the sources are lower quality energy forms
methods are later compared in terms of exergy and energy effi- such as thermal energy or chemical energy. Among all, supercon-
ciency, total exergy destruction rate, total entropy generation value, ductors have the highest overall storage efficiency of 94%. They
could enable significantly fast computer chips and power grids that
Table 22 are ultra-efficient. However, they may suffer due to short term
The main results for the molten salt thermal storage system. storage features. The lowest efficiency among electrochemical
routes is the Zn-air battery, with 58%. These batteries suffer from
Parameter Value
low roundtrip efficiency due to the substantial over-potentials at
Heat loss from the cold tank 1.642 kW
the air cathode.
Heat loss from the hot tank 16.42 kW
Overall exergy efficiency 23.1%
When the conversion efficiencies of renewable sources are
Overall energy efficiency 21.9% taken into account, Table 24 presents the source-to-electricity ef-
Energy efficiency for heat exchanger 100% ficiencies. The considered renewable sources are wind, ocean cur-
Exergy efficiency for heat exchanger 77% rent, solar, geothermal, and biomass have either electrical
Energy efficiency for condenser 100%
conversion efficiency (wind and ocean current) or thermal and
Exergy efficiency for condenser 35%
Energy efficiency for cold tank 67% electrical (solar, geothermal, and biomass). The renewable source-
Exergy efficiency for cold tank 99% to-electricity or source-to-thermal efficiencies are multiplied by
Energy efficiency for hot tank 95% calculated efficiencies to obtain the system’s final efficiency. The
Exergy efficiency for hot tank 96%
CAES shows a higher efficiency of 26.4% among the mechanical
Exergy efficiency for solar tower 54%
Energy efficiency for pump 100%
techniques when utilizing ocean current source than other sources
Exergy efficiency for pump 86% but is slightly higher than PHES by 0.04%. Whereas for the elec-
Energy efficiency for turbine 100% trochemical systems, the lithium-ion battery has shown the highest
Exergy efficiency for turbine 86% efficiency of 36% when utilizing ocean current source and the least
Heat rejected from condenser 223.7 kW
efficiency is found when using the geothermal source as 13.5%. The
Exergy destruction rate for solar tower 149.1 kW
Exergy destruction rate for heat exchanger 37.15 kW highest efficiency of RFC can reach 20%, whereas the least is 7.5%.
Exergy destruction rate for condenser 7.15 kW This is mainly due to the electricity to the chemical energy con-
Exergy destruction rate for cold tank 0.2921 kW version process. However, it is noted that RFC can enable longer-
Exergy destruction rate for hot tank 3.039 kW
term storage compared to many other methods. In addition,
Exergy destruction rate for pump 0.02649 kW
Exergy destruction rate for turbine 16.79 kW
temperature-driven degradation rates are not as significant
Entropy generation rate for solar tower 0.4918 kW/K compared to others.
Entropy generation rate for heat exchanger 0.1225 kW/K On the other hand, the electromagnetic systems show the
Entropy generation rate for condenser 0.02359 kW/K highest value of 37.6% for super magnetic storage, and the super-
Entropy generation rate for cold tank 0.0009636 kW/K
capacitor is less by only 0.8%. Since molten salt and hot water are
Entropy generation rate for hot tank 0.01002 kW/K
Entropy generation rate for pump 0.00008739 kW/K thermal-driven systems, the wind and ocean current does not
Entropy generation rate for turbine 0.05539 kW/K apply to both systems. The molten salt and hot water systems yield
Solar energy input for the system 342 kW better performance when biomass source is used. The high com-
Electrical input for the pump 0.1829 kW bustion temperature of biomass also enables molten salt storage
Electrical output from the turbine 100 kW
Total electrical work 99.93 kW
with better efficiency. The biomass-based molten salt storage sys-
Exergy efficiency of Rankine cycle 61% tem has higher efficiencies corresponding to 23.4% and 8.18%
Energy efficiency of Rankine cycle 31% compared to the geothermal and solar-based systems. Therefore,
Total exergy destruction rate of the system 213.5 kW the highest system efficiency compared to all systems is the super
Total entropy generation rate of the system 0.7044 kW/K
magnetic storage with 37.6% efficiency when utilizing the

14
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Table 23
The main results obtained for the storage systems from EES.

ESS method Overall energy efficiency Overall exergy efficiency Total exergy destruction rate Total entropy generation Energy input from source
(%) (%) (kW) (kW/K) (kW)

PHES 65% 65% 1.64 0.005409 155 (Electricity)


CAES 66.1% 66.1% 47.86 0.1579 153 (Electricity)
Hydrogen storage 69.1% 71.3% 25.01 0.04572 141 (Chemical)
Ammonia storage 74.0% 69.3% 28.45 0.07053 131 (Chemical)
Hot water storage 10.9% 64.6% 47.87 0.1580 905 (Thermal)
RFC 50.4% 50.4% 59.43 0.2845 199 (Electricity)
Molten salt thermal 21.9% 23.1% 213.5 0.7044 342 (Thermal)
storage

renewable sources of ocean current, and the least obtainable effi-


ciency for this is when using a geothermal source with an efficiency
of 14.1%.

4.2. Total exergy destruction rate

The exergy is destroyed continuously if the process is irrevers-


ible. The total exergy destruction rate represents non-recoverable
losses. For all systems, the total exergy destruction rates are
comparatively shown in Fig. 14. The molten salt system has the
highest overall exergy destruction rate with a value of 213.5 kW;
therefore, it means that the losses associated with this system are
higher than the other systems due to the thermal conversion of this
system. The system with the least exergy destruction rate is PHES,
as the value is 1.640 kW. The hot water storage and CAES have very
Fig. 13. The overall efficiency values for all energy storage systems (neglecting the close values as they are 47.87 kW and 47.86 kW, respectively. Hence,
source). it is always preferable to have the least possible exergy destruction

Table 24
Source-to-electricity efficiencies for energy storage systems (E: Electricity and T: Thermal).

Source-to-Electricity Wind (Electricity Ocean Current (Electricity Solar (Thermal 70%, Geothermal (Thermal 65%, Biomass (Thermal 75%,
Efficiency (%) 35% [29]) 40% [30]) Electricity 18% [29]) Electricity 15% [29]) Electricity 33% [29])

PHES (E: 65%) 22.8% 26% 11.7% 9.75% 21.5%


CAES (E: 66.1%) 23.1% 26.4% 11.9% 9.92% 21.8%
Lithium-ion battery (E: 31.5% 36% 16.2% 13.5% 29.7%
90%)
Zn-air Battery (E: 58%) 20.3% 23.2% 10.4% 8.7% 19.1%
Redox Flow Batteries 23.8% 27.2% 12.2% 10.2% 22.4%
(E: 68%)
RFC (E: 50%) 17.5% 20% 9% 7.5% 16.5%
Super Capacitors (E: 32.2% 36.8% 16.6% 13.8% 30.4%
92%)
Super Magnetic Storage 32.9% 37.6% 16.9% 14.1% 31%
(E: 94%)
Molten Salt (T: 31.2%) NA NA 21.8% 20.3% 23.4%
Hot Water (T: 10.9%) NA NA 7.63% 7.1% 8.18%

Fig. 14. The total exergy destruction rate for the ESS.
Fig. 15. The entropy generation values for the ESS.

15
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

rate for any energy system. hot water, (e) CAES, and (f) hydrogen systems.
The total exergy destruction rate represents the amount of non-
4.3. Total entropy generation value recoverable losses that are associated with the system. The molten
salt system efficiency enhances very slightly due to less heat loss to
The entropy generation is known as the degradation of the ambient; however, the destruction rate increases too in the range of
system performance and the dissipated useful energy. Some en- 10e40  C as shown in Fig. 17(a). However, this differs for the other
tropy is generated during an irreversible process, and that relates to systems: NH3 and H2, as shown in Fig. 17 (c) and Fig. 17 (f).
the presence of irreversibility. For all calculated systems, the total Moreover, the overall exergy efficiency decreases with higher
entropy generation values are shown in Fig. 15. The PHES system ambient temperatures for both ammonia and hydrogen, while its
has the least total entropy generation of 0.0054 kW/K; therefore, operating temperature for the hot water system is presented in
this system’s irreversibility is the least compared to the others. Both Fig. 17(d). The hot water system has a low exergy efficiency at 99  C
CAES and hot water storage are also close in values for this com- as it is 59% approximately. On the other hand, the pumped hydro in
parison, similar to the exergy destruction rates. In contrast, the Fig. 17(b) presents how changing the reservoir height values in-
molten salt system has the highest total entropy generation value of fluences both the system’s overall exergy efficiency and work
0.7044 kW/K. output. Thus, the work output continually increases, and it reaches
150 kW at 150 m reservoir height. The efficiency increases from 63%
4.4. Total energy input value to 65%. The work output of CAES increases by temperature, as
shown in Fig. 17(e), similar to the exergy destruction rate.
The total electrical/thermal energy input rates for all energy
storage systems calculated in EES are obtained by fixing the elec- 5. Conclusion
trical output to 100 kW in all calculations. All systems have
different energy inputs, as shown in Fig. 16. Hence, the hot water The efficient utilization of renewable energy sources can be
system requires the highest energy input of 905 kW. Therefore, the enhanced by implementing the proper energy storage system.
hot water system will require a high energy input since the quality Thus, discussing and analyzing several conventional energy storage
of required thermal energy is low. This can suggest low- systems could improve these systems’ implementation and the
temperature waste heat can be used for hot water storage. proper use of renewables. This study evaluates the energy storage
systems based on i) energy and exergy efficiency, ii) total entropy
4.5. Parametric study generation, iii) overall exergy destruction rate, and iv) total elec-
trical inputs. Further studies can focus on the sensitivity of energy
A parametric study is conducted based on thermodynamic cal- storage systems to harsh climate conditions and storage periods.
culations for studying the influence of different parameters (oper- The main findings of this study are written as follows:
ating and ambient temperatures, and operating pressure) on the
overall exergy efficiencies. The operating temperature ranges were  The ammonia system has the highest energy efficiency of 74.6%.
defined for the electrochemical, chemical, mechanical, and thermal In contrast, the hot water storage water has the least efficiency
storage systems. A range of ± 2e60  C is specified in the scenarios of 10.9%, and it is due to low-grade thermal energy conversion to
with 10 different runs, as shown in Fig. 17. The changing values for electricity.
the reservoir height, ambient, and operating temperatures are  The hydrogen storage is highest in terms of exergy efficiency
clearly influencing the exergy efficiency values. corresponding to 71.9%, and the molten salt thermal storage is
The impact of the reservoir height, ambient, and operating the least system with 23.1% efficiency.
temperature on the overall exergy efficiency, work output, and  Thermal energy storage units are mostly employed to sustain
destruction rate graphs are shown in Fig. 17. Effects of several sig- the operations more smoothly for night and daytime.
nificant operating parameters on the overall exergy efficiency and  The system with the most irreversibility presence is the molten
exergy destruction for (a) molten salt, (b) PHES, (c) ammonia, (d) salt thermal storage with an entropy generation value of
0.7044 kW/K, and the lowest value is 0.0054 kW/K for the PHES
system.
 The molten salt thermal storage has the highest exergy
destruction value of 213.5 kW due to thermal conversions.
Whereas the least exergy destruction rate is obtained for the
PHES with an amount of 1.640 kW
 The hot water requires a thermal energy input rate of 905 kW
for the system, and it is the highest input value compared to all
others. The super conductor’s system requires the least possible
energy input of 106 kW for producing 100 kW.
 By considering the renewable sources with the energy conver-
sion efficiencies, the highest efficiency is obtained for the super
magnetic conductors with 37.6% efficiency for the ocean current.
The least for this system is when utilizing the geothermal
source.
 The parametric study shows that the compressed air storage,
Fig. 16. The energy input values for all energy storage systems. PHES, hot water system overall exergy efficiencies decrease as
the operating temperature values increase.

16
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Fig. 17. Effects of several significant operating parameters on the overall exergy efficiency and exergy destruction for (a) molten salt, (b) PHES, (c) ammonia, (d) hot water, (e) CAES,
and (f) hydrogen systems.

CRediT author statement Declaration of competing interest

Manal Al-Shafi: Formal analysis, Writing e original draft, The authors declare that they have no known competing
Investigation, Software, Validation. Yusuf Bicer: Conceptualization, financial interests or personal relationships that could have
Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing e review & editing, appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Resources.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Hamad


17
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626

Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Qatar (210028127). Open different depths as storage reservoirs. Energy Convers Manag 2016;127:
149e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.096.
Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.
[7] Thomas RJ, K EN, Thomas RJ. Thermodynamic analysis of an integrated system
for LNG regasification and power production. Asian J. Eng. Technol. 2015;3.
Nomenclature https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3286.4400.
[8] Gopal KN, Subbarao R, Pandiyarajan V, Velraj R. Thermodynamic analysis of a
diesel engine integrated with a PCM based energy storage system. 2010.
ex Specific exergy (kJ/kg) https://doi.org/10.5541/ijot.1034000266.
h Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) [9] McTigue JD, White AJ, Markides CN. Parametric studies and optimisation of
m_ Mass flow rate (kg/s) pumped thermal electricity storage. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2014.08.039.
Q_ Heat rate (kW) [10] Khazaeli A, Vatani A, Tahouni N, Panjeshahi MH. Numerical investigation and
s Specific entropy (kJ/kg. K) thermodynamic analysis of the effect of electrolyte flow rate on performance
of all vanadium redox flow batteries. J Power Sources 2015;293:599e612.
W_ Work rate (kW) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.05.100.
T Temperature ( C) [11] Guizzi GL, Manno M, Tolomei LM, Vitali RM. Thermodynamic analysis of a
liquid air energy storage system. Energy 2015;93:1639e47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.030.
Acronyms [12] Olabi AG, Onumaegbu C, Wilberforce T, Ramadan M, Abdelkareem MA, Al e
Alami AH. Critical review of energy storage systems. Energy 2020:118987.
AA-CAES Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118987.
[13] Lepszy S. Analysis of the storage capacity and charging and discharging power
CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage in energy storage systems based on historical data on the day-ahead energy
EBE Energy Balance Equation market in Poland. Energy 2020;213. https://doi.org/10.1016/
ESS Energy Storage Systems j.energy.2020.118815.
[14] Koohi-Fayegh S, Rosen MA. A review of energy storage types, applications and
EES Engineering Equation Solver recent developments. J. Energy Storage. 2020;27. https://doi.org/10.1016/
EnBE Entropy Balance Equation j.est.2019.101047.
ExBE Exergy Balance Equation [15] Mostafa MH, Abdel Aleem SHE, Ali SG, Ali ZM, Abdelaziz AY. Techno-economic
assessment of energy storage systems using annualized life cycle cost of
LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy
storage (LCCOS) and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) metrics. J. Energy Storage.
LHV Lower Heating Value 2020;29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101345.
MBE Mass Balance Equation [16] AlShafi M, Bicer Y. Assessment of various energy storage methods for
implementation in hot and arid climates. Energy Storage 2020;2(6):1e15.
PCM Phase Changing Materials
https://doi.org/10.1002/est2.191.
PHES Pumped Hydro Energy Storage [17] Khan N, Dilshad S, Khalid R, Kalair AR, Abas N. Review of energy storage and
TES Thermal Energy Storage transportation of energy. Energy Storage 2019:e49. https://doi.org/10.1002/
VRFB Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries est2.49.
[18] Dincer I, Bicer Y. Ammonia production. In: Compr. Energy Syst. Oxford:
Elsevier; 2018. p. 41e94. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809597-
Subscripts and superscripts 3.00305-9.
[19] Morabito A, Steimes J, Bontems O, Al Zohbi G, Hendrick P. Set-up of a pump as
turbine use in micro-pumped hydro energy storage: a case of study in Froy-
avg Average ennes Belgium. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017;813. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
ch Chemical 6596/813/1/012033.
D Destruction [20] Chatzivasileiadi A, Ampatzi E, Knight I. Characteristics of electrical energy
storage technologies and their applications in buildings. Renew Sustain En-
en Energy ergy Rev 2013;25:814e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.023.
ex Exergy [21] Gayathri V, Velraj R. Performance analysis of a small capacity compressed air
FC Fuel Cells energy storage system for renewable energy generation using TRNSYS.
J Renew Sustain Energy 2017;9. PP 044106.
gen Generated
[22] Salvini C, Mariotti P, Giovannelli A. Compression and air storage systems for
ph Physical small size CAES plants: design and off-design analysis. In: Energy procedia;
RC Rankine Cycle 2017. p. 369e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.178.
[23] Nadeem F, Hussain SMS, Tiwari PK, Goswami AK, Ustun TS. Comparative re-
R Reservoir
view of energy storage systems, their roles, and impacts on future power
systems. IEEE Access 2019;7:4555e85. https://doi.org/10.1109/
References ACCESS.2018.2888497.
[24] Wang J, Lu K, Ma L, Wang J, Dooner M, Miao S, Li J, Wang D. Overview of
[1] Münderlein J, Ipers G, Steinhoff M, Zurmühlen S. Electrical Power and Energy compressed air energy storage and technology development. Energies
Systems Optimization of a hybrid storage system and evaluation of operation 2017;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10070991.
strategies. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020;119:105887. https://doi.org/ [25] Ibrahim H, Ilinca A, Perron J. Energy storage systems-Characteristics and
10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.105887. comparisons. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:1221e50. https://doi.org/
[2] Safaei H, Aziz MJ. Thermodynamic analysis of three compressed air energy 10.1016/j.rser.2007.01.023.
storage systems: conventional, adiabatic, and hydrogen-fueled. Energies [26] F-Chart-Software, EES: engineering equation solver | F-Chart Software : en-
2017;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071020. gineering software. 2012. p. 6e8. 2018.
[27] €
Ostergård R. Flywheel energy storage - a conceptual study [Thesis]. Uppsala
[3] Yang Z, Wang Z, Ran P, Li Z, Ni W. Thermodynamic analysis of a hybrid
thermal-compressed air energy storage system for the integration of wind University; 2011. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%
power. Appl Therm Eng 2014;66:519e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 3A476114&dswid=F5_Opener.
j.applthermaleng.2014.02.043. [28] Ribeiro PF, Johnson BK, Crow ML, Arsoy A, Liu Y. Energy storage systems for
[4] Palys MJ, Daoutidis P. Using hydrogen and ammonia for renewable energy advanced power applications. Proc IEEE 2001;89:1744e56. https://doi.org/
storage: a geographically comprehensive techno-economic study. Comput 10.1109/5.975900.
Chem Eng 2020;136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106785. [29] Beurskens Jos MD, Andre  Faaij, Peter Fraenkel, Ingvar Fridleifsson, Erik Lysen,
[5] Safaei H, Aziz MJ. Thermodynamic analysis of a compressed air energy storage Moreira Roberto Jose ASCW, Lars Nilsson J. Schaap anton, renewable energy
facility exporting compression heat to an external heat load. 2014. https:// technologies. In: WORLD ENERGY assess. ENERGY Chall. Sustain. New York,
doi.org/10.1115/ESDA2014-20412. NY: United Nations Development Programme; 2000. p. 220e72.
[6] Liu H, He Q, Borgia A, Pan L, Oldenburg CM. Thermodynamic analysis of a [30] Haas KA, Fritz HM, French SP, Neary VS. Assessment of energy production
compressed carbon dioxide energy storage system using two saline aquifers at potential from ocean currents along the United States Coastline. 2013.

18

You might also like