4.7 Article

Assessment of geological resource potential for compressed air energy storage in global electricity supply

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 161-173

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.058

关键词

CAES; Adiabatic compressed air energy storage; Energy storage; Renewable energy; Potential site estimation; Underground storage cavern

资金

  1. Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation [40101/14]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the geological resource potential of the compressed air energy storage (CAES) technology worldwide by overlaying suitable geological formations, salt deposits and aquifers. For this study, the world is divided into 145 regions, which are aggregated to 9 major regions. The potential of CAES in each region is assessed and a relevant map is provided. Three constraints have been implemented, allowing for 1%, 5% and 10% of the selected area to be considered for CAES. Among all major regions, in the most conservative constraint (1% of the total area), North America is the leader with 0.26% suitability of its total area, followed by SubSaharan Africa and South America at 0.20% and 0.19%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis is implemented to evaluate the validity and reliability of the results. Three scenarios are considered: Optimistic, Moderate and Pessimistic. Underground natural gas storage data for the US is used due to freely and publicly available data. The natural gas storage site is assumed to have the same structure as CAES. The sensitivity analysis shows that the accuracy of the findings lie in the range of 66-85% and 63-82%, depending on the scenarios and reservoir types. The results clearly reveal that CAES is a promising energy storage technology for electricity supply in most of the regions. This research presents the groundwork to identify the untapped potential of CAES, which can be also utilized for the second generation of CAES such as adiabatic CAES and isothermal CAES.

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