4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Techno-economic analysis of screening metal hydride pairs for a 910 MWhth thermal energy storage system

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 242, Issue -, Pages 148-156

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.046

Keywords

Techno-economic analysis; Thermal energy storage; Metal hydride; Energy consumption; Life cycle economic analysis

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB057602]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51876150]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Matching of metal hydride pairs has a significant influence on performance of thermal energy storage (TES) system. This article conducts a complete techno-economic analysis of screening metal hydride pairs (MgH2& LaNiAl and MgH2&TiFeMn). A mathematical model is developed to calculate the energy consumption, which is solved by COMSOL Multiphysics v5.1. Firstly, thermodynamic matching is analyzed to judge the energy consumption qualitatively. Further, a cost model of thermal energy is established to estimate the energy consumption cost. It is found that the charging energy consumption cost of MgH2&LaNiAl system is reduced to be zero due to a good thermodynamic matching, whereas that of MgH2&TiFeMn system accounts for as high as 63.8% of the cycle energy consumption cost. Based on the life cycle economic analysis, matching of MgH2& TiFeMn is considered to be a better selection due to a smaller levelized thermal storage cost (28 USD/kWh(th)), where two major expenses are the capital cost and energy consumption cost, 74.3% and 19.3% respectively. Therefore, a matching principle is concluded that screening metal hydride pairs for TES should be considered in two ways: firstly, the hydrogen storage cost due to the expensive price of low temperature metal hydride; secondly, the thermodynamic matching, which determines the energy consumption cost.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available