Researchers in the United Arab Emirates have compared the performance of compressed air storage and lead-acid batteries in terms of energy stored per cubic meter, costs, and payback period. They found the former has a considerably lower Capex and a payback time of only two years.
The experimental setup at the campus of the University of Sharjah. Compressor Air Hoses
Scientists from the University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates have compared the storage potential of compressed air energy storage (CAES) systems and conventional lead-acid batteries in an experimental setup and have found that CAES offers a series of operational advantages over electrochemical systems. “Our CAES concept is applicable to all locations as it just needs tanks buried underground,” the research's corresponding author, Abdul Hai Alami, told pv magazine. “but it would really shine in hot climates.”
In the study “Experimental evaluation of compressed air energy storage as a potential replacement of electrochemical batteries,” which was recently published in the Journal of Energy Storage, the UAE group described the experimental setup as a unit combining a CAES system operating as an AC generator that is connected to various loads through an electrical panel. Its performance was compared to that of a 12 V, 70 Ah battery provided by US-based Incoe Corporation, which was connected via a 600 W inverter through an inversion circuit to the same load.
The CAES system consists of an air motor connected to a 3-phase, permanent magnet AC generator supplying 380 V and 5 A. The connection was made either directly or through a 1:2 or 1:4 speed-up gearboxes to compare the discharge time and output energy quality. The system also had a rudimentary heat exchanger – a pipe loop in a water bath – to control air temperature, which affects air density significantly, resulting in better system efficiency. The scientists tested two different motor sizes of 5 hp and 9 hp, respectively.
The performance of both storage technologies was measured in terms of energy stored per cubic meter, costs, and payback period. “In order to assess system performance, three loads are operated, a 6 W fan, 100 W lamp, and a 250 W drill,” the scientists explained. “A No-load condition was also performed to determine the full capacity of the system and compare it with theoretical calculations in terms of voltage and time of discharge.”
The researchers also installed electrical cabinets to receive load cables from the generator in order to investigate the suitability of the CAES system for industrial applications. “These include Industry-standard sockets for single phase and three phases with two different colors, protect against inadvertent electric shocks, provide earth leakage protection and finally the coated panel provides protection against environmental elements,” they emphasized.
The academics explained that the quality of the energy generated by the generator's air motor, which is in turn activated by the kinetic energy coming from the storage air cylinders of the CAES system, is provided by maintaining operation at the rated rotational speed of the generator in order to satisfy the minimum output voltage and operational frequency that will eventually be supplied to the end-users.
According to their calculations, the theoretical maximum output power of the CAES system, at 12 bar pressure, should be 0.048 kW and its theoretical roundtrip efficiency was estimated at 86.6 %. The experimental maximum output power of the system, however, was 27% lower at 0.035 kW and its experimental roundtrip efficiency was around 60%. The battery was found to ensure continuous operation of around 50 minutes, after which the power supplied to the inverter proved to be insufficient and the loads were immediately unpowered.
“The main factors to enhance roundtrip efficiency are the larger air storage volumes to ensure consistent pressure input to the air motors, better thermal management of air temperature, connecting more than one tank to the system and operating them in series or in tandem and finally having an air motor/generator as a single unit to overcome mechanical losses,” Alami further explained. “Simulation and control of system operation allowing input pressure variation to follow demand is another important factor in enhancing operation and scale up.”
In their cost comparison, the researchers considered an 840 kWh/3.5 kW CAES setup and a 1400 kWh lead Acid battery connected to a 3.5 kW battery inverter. The cost of the second setup was estimated at $130,307 and that of the CAES system at $23,780.
“As a rough estimate, breakeven point with a battery storage system can be achieved within 3–5 years depending on charge-discharge cycles required from the battery and no including the price for battery cabinet, air conditioning and the costs of the cooling load,” they highlighted, noting that if the CAES capacity is solely a function of the storage tanks capacity and space available for them, the above-ground footprint of the system is minimal and comparable with a battery enclosure connected to an air conditioning split unit. “The payback period, in this case, would be around 1–2 years,” they said.
The research team is currently considering how to bring the proposed storage technology closer to commercial production. “The system is intrinsically compatible with off-grid solar farms, charging the tanks with high-pressure 100 bar air compressors with a capacity of around 30 kW,” Alami said. “With tanks available and amenable to underground burial, the main technical issues of the system are clear and manageable for such installations. Also, the system can power EV chargers in off-grid locations.”
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
More articles from Emiliano Bellini
Re compressed air storage ..how about an old fashioned gasometer style unit with an inverted tank over water.It would provide constant pressure.You could call it Snowy Aero 1.Regards Andrew Small.
So these researchers built a puny 1.9 kilowatt CAES system with unclear amount of energy storage, found it worked, and then “theoretically” found if scaled up it would be cheaper than a battery chemistry that NOBODY uses for grid storage.
Build a 1 MWh compressed air energy storage system, deal with the huge temperature swings involved in compressing then releasing the pressure (other large-scale systems try to store the thermal energy from compression to use in later heating, making it a lot more complicated) , and get back to us, mmmKay?
I’m missing the thermal influence of the pressure and depressure phases in the discussion of the CAES system!
I’m thinking that during the hottest part of the day and most sunshine on the panels, the air going into the tanks would be hotter and the tanks, if above ground would also get hotter, adding energy to the system so it would improve the efficiency.
Cost of systems are hard to calculate and are highly dependent of the assumptions. For example: Due to sulphurisation and depth of cycle issues, the move away from lead-acid systems and towards lithium based battery systems, from a maintenance point of view, has been significant. The full cost of systems needs to include maintenance and stipulate the level of knowledge assumed to keep them running. With most systems, the assumptions are the most important item to include in any study. Ground works alone for burying the tanks could eat up the difference in price.
Lithium extraction is an extremely dirty process and damaging to nature. Nothing green about lithium batteries. What do you do with the old lithium betteries at their end of life?
Very useful information. Thank you.
Well, despite its detractors, it is a successful “proof or concept” demonstration. The next obvious step(s) is to build larger units and subject them to testing.
good idea. all should work on solutions that dont include batteries. if we use polluting batteries to store energy then what the point with “clean energy”
Please be mindful of our community standards.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.
Lubricated Air Compressor The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.