Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Comparative analysis of isochoric and isobaric Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage

  • ,
  • Bruno Cardenas
    ,
  • Seamus Garvey
    ,
  • James Rouse
    ,
  • Edward Hough
    ,
  • Audrius Bagdanavicius
  • Loughborough University
    ,
  • University of Nottingham
    ,
  • British Geological Survey
    ,
  • University of Leicester
Research Output: Contribution to journal Article Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy
    SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy

Abstract

Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (ACAES) is regarded as a promising, grid scale, medium-to-long duration energy storage technology. In ACAES, the air storage may be isochoric (constant volume) or isobaric (constant pressure). Isochoric storage, wherein the internal pressure cycles between an upper and lower limit as the system charges and discharges is mechanically simpler, however, it leads to undesirable thermodynamic consequences which are detrimental to the ACAES overall performance. Isobaric storage can be a valuable alternative: the storage volume varies to offset the pressure and temperature changes that would otherwise occur as air mass enters or leaves the high-pressure storage. In this paper we develop a thermodynamic model based on expected ACAES and existing CAES system features to compare the effects of isochoric and isobaric storage. Importantly, off-design compressor performance due to the sliding storage pressure is included by using a second degree polynomial fit for the isentropic compressor efficiency. For our modelled systems, the isobaric system round-trip efficiency (RTE) reaches 61.5%. The isochoric system achieves 57.8% even when no compressor off-design performance decrease is taken into account. This fact is associated to inherent losses due to throttling and mixing of heat stored at different temperatures. In our base-case scenario where the isentropic compressor efficiency varies between (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.), the isochoric system RTE is approximately 10% lower than the isobaric. These results indicate that isobaric storage for CAES is worth further development. We suggest that subsequent work investigate the exergy flows as well as the scalability challenges with isobaric storage mechanisms.

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output: Contribution to journal Article Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

2646

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Energies (Volume 16, Issue 6)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 10/03/2023
  • Published - 10/03/2023

Publication status

Published - 10/03/2023

External Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85151425644

Publication metrics

Metrics

Download statistics
Download count
1