Life-cycle assessment of gravity energy storage systems for large-scale application

被引:47
作者
Berrada, Asmae [1 ]
Emrani, Anisa [1 ]
Ameur, Arechkik [2 ]
机构
[1] Int Univ Rabat, Coll Engn & Architecture, LERMA, Sala Al Jadida, Morocco
[2] Al Akhawayn Univ, Sch Sci & Engn, Ifrane, Morocco
来源
JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE | 2021年 / 40卷
关键词
Energy storage; Gravity; GESH; LCOS; Economic; NPV; LCOE; LEVELIZED COST; SOLAR; PERFORMANCE; TECHNOLOGY; AIR;
D O I
10.1016/j.est.2021.102825
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
Interest in energy storage systems has been increased with the growing penetration of variable renewable energy sources. This paper discusses a detailed economic analysis of an attractive gravitational potential energy storage option, known as gravity energy storage (GES). The economic performance of this energy storage system is compared to other alternative energy storage technologies such as pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Moreover, a life cycle costs and levelized cost of electricity delivered by this energy storage are analyzed to provide expert, power producers, and grid operators insight about the economic implications of this grid-scale gravitational energy storage technology. Depending on the considered scenarios and assumptions, the levelized cost of storage of GES varies between 7.5 (sic)ct/kWh and 15 (sic)ct/kWh, while it is between 3.8 (sic)ct/kWh and 7.3 (sic)ct/kWh for gravity energy storage with wire hoisting system (GESH). The LCOS of GES and GESH were then compared to other energy storage systems. The obtained results show that GESH is very cost-competitive with pumped hydro and Compressed Air Energy Storage technologies; while GES is competitive with PHES and may be cost-competitive with CAES depending on the operation cycles. The performed analysis has also shown that both GES and GESH offer interesting economic advantages for the provision of energy arbitrage service.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   A review and probabilistic model of lifecycle costs of stationary batteries in multiple applications [J].
Battke, Benedikt ;
Schmidt, Tobias S. ;
Grosspietsch, David ;
Hoffmann, Volker H. .
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2013, 25 :240-250
[2]   CO2 Footprint and Life-Cycle Costs of Electrochemical Energy Storage for Stationary Grid Applications [J].
Baumann, M. ;
Peters, J. F. ;
Weil, M. ;
Grunwald, A. .
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, 2017, 5 (07) :1071-1083
[3]   Sizing and economic analysis of gravity storage [J].
Berrada, A. ;
Loudiyi, K. ;
Zorkani, I. .
JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, 2016, 8 (02)
[4]  
Berrada A., 2019, GRAVITY ENERGY STORA, DOI [10.1016/B978-0-12-816717-5.00003-7, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-816717-5.00003-7]
[5]   Dynamic modeling of gravity energy storage coupled with a PV energy plant [J].
Berrada, Asmae ;
Loudiyi, Khalid ;
Garde, Raquel .
ENERGY, 2017, 134 :323-335
[6]  
Berrada A, 2016, INT RENEW SUST ENERG, P1159, DOI 10.1109/IRSEC.2016.7983956
[7]   Operation, sizing, and economic evaluation of storage for solar and wind power plants [J].
Berrada, Asmae ;
Loudiyi, Khalid .
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2016, 59 :1117-1129
[8]   Capability study of dry gravity energy storage [J].
Botha, C. D. ;
Kamper, M. J. .
JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE, 2019, 23 :159-174
[9]   Economic viability of energy storage systems based on price arbitrage potential in real-time US electricity markets [J].
Bradbury, Kyle ;
Pratson, Lincoln ;
Patino-Echeverri, Dalia .
APPLIED ENERGY, 2014, 114 :512-519
[10]  
Buiskikh D., 2018, 2018 15 INT C EUR EN, P1, DOI [10.1109/ EEM.2018.8470012. Lodz, DOI 10.1109/EEM.2018.8470012.LODZ]