Abstract
Currently, working fluids for adiabatic compressed energy storage primarily rely on carbon dioxide and air. However, it remains an unresolved issue to which of these two systems performs better. Therefore, this paper compares the advantages and disadvantages of both systems in terms of thermodynamic and economic performances under the given boundary conditions. To accurately obtain the performance of energy storage systems, quasi-dynamic models are established for key components. On this foundation, corresponding thermodynamic-economic models are developed. The results indicate that at thermal storage temperatures of 120 ℃, 140 ℃, and 160 ℃, 100 MW×5h compressed carbon dioxide energy storage systems have higher round-trip efficiencies than compressed air energy storage systems. However, the compressed carbon dioxide energy storage also faces the difficulties of higher cost and longer payback period. Specifically, at the thermal storage temperature of 140 ℃, round-trip efficiencies of compressed air energy storage and compressed carbon dioxide energy storage are 59.48 % and 65.16 % respectively, with costs of $11.54 × 107 and $13.45 × 107, and payback periods of 11.86 years and 12.57 years respectively. Compared to compressed air energy storage system, compressed carbon dioxide energy storage system has 9.55 % higher round-trip efficiency, 16.55 % higher cost, and 6 % longer payback period. At other thermal storage temperatures, similar phenomenons can be observed for these two systems. After comprehensively considering the obtained thermodynamic and economic performances, the overall performance of compressed air energy storage is superior to that of compressed carbon dioxide energy storage. In addition, in practical engineering, key components of compressed air energy storage are more mature than those of compressed carbon dioxide energy storage, and air has higher safety than carbon dioxide. In the future work, the comparison for performances between different types of compressed carbon dioxide energy storage and compressed air energy storage should be taken into account, and dynamic models of the systems should be developed. Additionally, the industry chain of compressed carbon dioxide energy storage should be accelerated to reduce equipment costs, enabling it to compete with compressed air energy storage.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
