Energy: Manal Alsha, Yusuf Bicer
Energy: Manal Alsha, Yusuf Bicer
Energy: Manal Alsha, Yusuf Bicer
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
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/).
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
Table 1
General technical specifications of energy storage techniques (data from Ref. [16e25]).
ESS Type Technical Maturity Efficiency Ranges (%) Capacity (kW, MWh or MW)
4
M. AlShafi and Y. Bicer Energy 219 (2021) 119626
Table 3
The balance equations for PHES 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
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.
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
_ _
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
T0 þ T8
E_ ex;chemical;in ¼ m_ 1 exphH2 þ exchH2 (17) Tavg ¼
2
(18)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Table 18 Table 20
The main results for the hot water storage. The main results for the ammonia storage system.
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
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)
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])
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.
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
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