4.7 Article

Analysis of battery lifetime extension in a SMES-battery hybrid energy storage system using a novel battery lifetime model

期刊

ENERGY
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 175-185

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.132

关键词

SMES (superconducting magnetic energy storage); Battery; Off-grid wind power system; Battery lifetime model; Discharge rate

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/K01496X/1]
  2. Royal Academy of Engineering, UK
  3. State Key Lab of Power System in Tsinghua University, China
  4. Chinese Scholarship Council, China
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K01496X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. EPSRC [EP/K01496X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In off-grid wind energy systems, batteries often undergo frequent charge/discharge cycles, which reduce battery service life. In addition, due to motor start and other high 'inrush current' loads batteries undergo high rates of discharge which also degrade battery life. In this paper, a superconducting magnetic energy storage and battery hybrid energy storage system is proposed, which is beneficial in reducing battery short term power cycling and high discharge currents. To demonstrate system performance, a representative off-grid wind power system model is described in detail which incorporates turbulent wind variations, load variations and energy storage systems. To estimate battery lifetime improvement, a novel battery lifetime model is described, which quantifies the impact of both the number of charge/discharge cycles and also the effect rate of discharge. The model, is validated using previously reported data. This work advances previous studies by describing the estimated improvement in terms of battery life in a wind energy conversion application by use of superconducting energy storage and by presenting a novel method for doing so. In addition, the proposed battery lifetime model can be potentially used in other applications. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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