4.7 Article

Liquid air energy storage system based on fluidized bed heat transfer

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 215, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.118928

关键词

Liquid air energy storage; Fluidized bed heat transfer; Thermal storage material; Thermodynamic analysis; Performance comparison

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquid air energy storage (LAES) is a popular technology for integrating renewable energy into the power grid. A novel LAES system based on fluidized bed heat transfer (FB-LAES) using quartz sand as the energy storage material provides a more efficient alternative to traditional solid-phase and liquid-phase cold energy storage.
Liquid air energy storage (LAES) is a large-scale energy storage technology that has gained wide popularity due to its ability to integrate renewable energy into the power grid. Efficient cold/heat energy storage, which currently mainly includes solid-phase packed beds and liquid-phase fluids, is essential for the LAES system. However, the current heat/cold energy storage methods have limitations, such as the risk of flammability and explosion, the dynamic effect of the thermocline, and expensive investment. To address these limitations, a novel LAES based on fluidized bed heat transfer (FB-LAES) is proposed, and quartz sand is adopted as the heat/cold energy storage material. A thermodynamic model is developed, and the effects of heat exchanger design con-ditions and fluidization parameters on system performance are investigated, which indicates that the lower air-side/particle-side pressure drop and higher particle transport coefficient (PTC) favor the efficiency improvement of the FB-LAES system. The comparison demonstrates that the round-trip efficiency (RTE) of the FB-LAES system can reach 58.76% without stringent design conditions, while the RTE of the LAES system with traditional solid-phase (packed bed) and liquid-phase (methanol and propane) cold energy storage are 48.76% and 57.46%, respectively.

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

4.7
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