4.8 Article

Analytical expression for the evaluation of multi-stage adiabatic-compressed air energy storage (A-CAES) systems cycle efficiency

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 288, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116592

关键词

Adiabatic-compressed air energy storage (A-CAES); Energy storage; Cycle efficiency; Storage efficiency; Analytical study

资金

  1. Mitacs [IT11622]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the cycle efficiency equation for Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) systems, considering the impact of pressure ratio and temperature on efficiency. It introduces a simple analytical expression applicable to A-CAES systems, providing a robust tool for preliminary sizing.
Most renewable energies are intermittent and require electricity storage systems to provide reliable, continuous power. Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is one of the few economically viable potential solutions to store gigawatt-hours of electricity. Adiabatic-CAES (A-CAES) systems store the heat from compression and eliminate the need for injecting fuel before expansion. Literature generally agrees that cycle efficiency, i.e. the ratio of expansion and compression work, increases with compressor pressure ratio or discharge temperature, but a few publications show the opposite trend. This paper explicitly reformulates the cycle efficiency equation, now valid for single and multi-stage A-CAES systems, and clearly explains the impact of pressure ratio and temperature on efficiency. Explanations are given for contradicting trends that appear in literature, and the analytical expression is compared with a numerical model and external studies to evaluate its performance. A Latin hypercube sampling is performed and shows that the discrepancy between the analytical and numerical results lies between-4.1% and +1.0% over a large design space, showing that the simple analytical expression derived is a robust tool for preliminary sizing of A-CAES multi-stage systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据