Journal
ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 253, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115082
Keywords
Carbon Dioxide; Geothermal Energy; Renewable Energy; Carbon Dioxide Plume Geothermal (CPG); Large-scale energy storage; Operational Strategies
Categories
Funding
- National Science Foundation (NSF) under the Sustainable Energy Pathways (SEP) [SEP-123069]
- NSF National Research Traineeship [1922666]
- Sloan Foundation
- Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems (INFEWS) [1739909]
- Sus-tainability Institute and the Center for Energy Research, Training, and Innovation (CERTAIN) at the Ohio State University (OSU)
- Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE), a signature program of the Institute on the Environment (IonE) at UMN
- Werner Siemens Foundation (Werner Siemens-Stiftung)
- Division Of Graduate Education
- Direct For Education and Human Resources [1922666] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
CPG-F facility can generate more power than CPG power plant, but with less daily energy production. The capital cost of a CPG-F facility designed for varying durations of energy storage is 70% higher than a CPG power plant, but costs only 4% to 27% more than most CPG-F facilities designed for a specific duration, producing significantly more power than a CPG power plant.
CO2-Plume Geothermal (CPG) power plants can use geologically stored CO2 to generate electricity. In this study, a Flexible CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG-F) facility is introduced, which can use geologically stored CO2 to provide dispatchable power, energy storage, or both dispatchable power and energy storage simultaneously-providing baseload power with dispatchable storage for demand response. It is found that a CPG-F facility can deliver more power than a CPG power plant, but with less daily energy production. For example, the CPG-F facility produces 7.2 MWe for 8 h (8 h-16 h duty cycle), which is 190% greater than power supplied from a CPG power plant, but the daily energy decreased by 61% from 60 MWe-h to 23 MWe-h. A CPG-F facility, designed for varying durations of energy storage, has a 70% higher capital cost than a CPG power plant, but costs 4% to 27% more than most CPG-F facilities, designed for a specific duration, while producing 90% to 310% more power than a CPG power plant. A CPG-F facility, designed to switch from providing 100% dispatchable power to 100% energy storage, only costs 3% more than a CPG-F facility, designed only for energy storage.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available