4.8 Review

Power to Gas projects review: Lab, pilot and demo plants for storing renewable energy and CO2

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages 292-312

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.130

Keywords

Power-to-Gas; Energy storage; Carbon capture; SNG

Funding

  1. Fundacion Iberdrola through the programme
  2. Department of Industry and Innovation of DiputaciOn General de Aragon
  3. European Social Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Power to Gas (PtG) processes have appeared in the last years as a long-term solution for renewable electricity surplus storage through methane production. These promising techniques will play a significant role in the future energy storage scenario since it addresses two crucial issues: electrical grid stability in scenarios with high share of renewable sources and decarbonisation of high energy density fuels for transportation. There is a large number of pathways for the transformation of energy from renewable sources into gaseous or liquid fuels through the combination with residual carbon dioxide. The high energy density of these synthetic fuels allows a share of the original renewable energy to be stored in the long-term. The first objective of this review is to thoroughly gather and classify all these energy storage techniques to define in a clear manner the framework which includes the Power to Gas technologies. Once the boundaries of these PtG processes have been evidenced, the second objective of the work is to detail worldwide existing projects which deal with this technology. Basic information such as main objectives, location and launching date is presented together with a qualitative description of the plant, technical data, budget and project partners. A timeline has been built for every project to be able of tracking the evolution of research lines of different companies and institutions.

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