4.8 Article

Experimental evaluation of an innovative radial-flow high-temperature packed bed thermal energy storage

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 311, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118672

关键词

Thermal energy storage; Packed-bed; Radial-flow; High temperature; Experimental evaluation

资金

  1. Swedish Energy Agency
  2. Azelio AB through the Energy Agency program Electricity from the Sun [P43284-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents an experimental setup of a high-temperature packed-bed thermal energy storage system and evaluates its performance. The results show that radial-flow packed-bed designs have the advantage of reduced pressure drops, but thermocline degradation is the main weakness of this design.
High-temperature packed-bed thermal energy storage represents an economically viable large-scale energy storage solution for a future fossil-free energy scenario. The present work introduces first-of-a-kind experimental setup of a radial packed-bed TES, and its performance assessment based on experimental investigations. The storage performance is analyzed based on a set of dimensionless criteria and indicators. The laboratory-scale prototype has an energy capacity of 49.7 kWhth and working temperatures between 25?degrees C and 700 degrees C with a non-pressurized dry airflow. The influence of different working fluid mass flow rates and inlet temperatures during charge and discharge is assessed. The proposed storage design ensures limited pressure drop, lower than 1 mbar, and thermal losses, about 1.11 % during dwell after charging at 700 C until a state of charge of 55.8 %. A maximum overall thermal efficiency of 71.8 % has been recorded and trade-offs between efficiency, thermal uniformity, and thermocline thickness are highlighted. This work testifies that reduced pressure drops are the key advantage of radial-flow packed-bed designs. Thermocline degradation is shown to be the main weak point of this thermal energy storage design.

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