A thermo-economic analysis and comparison of pumped-thermal and liquid-air electricity storage systems
A thermo-economic analysis and comparison of pumped-thermal and liquid-air electricity storage systems
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.128
复制
发表时间：
2018-09
期刊：
影响因子：
11.2
通讯作者：
S. Georgiou;N. Shah;C. Markides
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Georgiou;N. Shah;C. Markides
从能源系统规划和管理的角度来看，高效和负担得起的电力存储系统具有支持间歇性可再生能源发电增长和增加其进入电网的渗透的巨大潜力，而高峰和非高峰电力的需求和价格差异可以使其存储具有经济利益。技术（例如，往返效率、能量和功率容量）以及经济性（例如，资本、运营和维护成本）指标预计将对任何正在考虑的电力储存技术或系统的竞争力产生重大综合影响，并最终将决定其采用和实施。在本文中，我们提出了两个最近提出的中到大规模的电力存储系统，即“抽水蓄能”（PTES）和“液体空气储能”（LAES）的热经济模型，重点是系统的效率和成本。LAES热力学模型验证对数据从一个操作中试工厂在英国，没有这样的等效PTES工厂存在，虽然目前正在建设中。与大多数新提出的技术一样，缺乏成本数据导致经济分析和比较成为一个重大挑战。因此，成本计算工作的两个电力存储系统，其中包括多种成本计算方法的基础上的模块成本计算技术，进行初步的经济可行性评估和比较的两个系统的首要目标。根据结果，PTES似乎有可能实现更高的往返效率，尽管这仍有待证明。LAES的性能被发现显着提高，通过整合和利用废热（和冷）流。另一方面，在经济性方面，在用于商业应用的系统规模下，LAES（12 MW，50 MWh）在这项工作中估计具有比PTES（2 MW，11.5 MWh）更低的资本成本和更低的存储平准化成本，尽管注意到如果采用定制组件，则PTES技术的经济建议的预测特别不确定。然而，当考虑到所需的销售-购买价格比时，PTES在高于0.15 $/kWh的电力购买价格时似乎（以小幅度）在经济上更具竞争力，主要是由于其更高的往返效率。当考虑两个系统在相同的能力，成本是类似的，略有优势PTES。最后，令人感兴趣的是，这两个系统中最昂贵的部件是压缩和膨胀装置，这表明需要为这种系统开发负担得起的高性能装置。
Efficient and affordable electricity storage systems have a significant potential to support the growth and increasing penetration of intermittent renewable-energy generation into the grid from an energy system planning and management perspective, while differences in the demand and price of peak and off-peak electricity can make its storage of economic interest. Technical (e.g., roundtrip efficiency, energy and power capacity) as well as economic (e.g., capital, operating and maintenance costs) indicators are anticipated to have a significant combined impact on the competitiveness of any electricity storage technology or system under consideration and, ultimately, will crucially determine their uptake and implementation. In this paper, we present thermo-economic models of two recently proposed medium- to large-scale electricity storage systems, namely ‘Pumped-Thermal Electricity Storage’ (PTES) and ‘Liquid-Air Energy Storage’ (LAES), focusing on system efficiency and costs. The LAES thermodynamic model is validated against data from an operational pilot plant in the UK; no such equivalent PTES plant exists, although one is currently under construction. As common with most newly proposed technologies, the absence of cost data results to the economic analysis and comparison being a significant challenge. Therefore, a costing effort for the two electricity storage systems that includes multiple costing approaches based on the module costing technique is presented, with the overriding aim of conducting a preliminary economic feasibility assessment and comparison of the two systems. Based on the results, it appears that PTES has the potential to achieve higher roundtrip efficiencies, although this remains to be demonstrated. LAES performance is found to be significantly enhanced through the integration and utilisation of waste heat (and cold) streams. In terms of economics on the other hand, and at the system size intended for commercial application, LAES (12 MW, 50 MWh) is estimated in this work to have a lower capital cost and a lower levelised cost of storage than PTES (2 MW, 11.5 MWh), although it is noted that the prediction of the economic proposition of PTES technology is particularly uncertain if customised components are employed. However, when considering the required sell-to-buy price ratios, PTES appears (by a small margin) economically more competitive above an electricity buy price of ∼0.15 $/kWh, primarily due to its higher roundtrip efficiency. When considering the two systems at the same capacity, the costs are similar with a slight edge to PTES. Finally, it is of interest that the most expensive components in both systems are the compression and expansion devices, which suggests that there is a need to develop affordable high-performance devices for such systems.