energy storage technology comparison
TRANSCRIPT
Bachelor of Science Thesis
KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management
Energy Technology EGI-2016
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Energy Storage Technology Comparison
From a Swedish perspective
Felix Söderström
1
Bachelor of Science Thesis EGI-2016
Energy Storage Technology Comparison
From a Swedish perspective
Felix Söderström
Approved
Examiner
Viktoria Martin
Supervisor
Justin Chiu
Saman Nimali Gunasekara
ABSTRACT
Due to increased usage of renewable energy sources a need to store energy, from times of low
demand or high production to times of higher demand or lower production, have risen. This
report is meant to serve as a comparison between different methods of energy storage from a
Swedish point of view. Several technical aspects as well as environmental and social impacts
of different energy storage methods have been compared.
The conclusion reached is that PHES is still the most favourable way of storing energy due to
the good performance and reliability it offers. If found possible, Sweden should therefore
continuously expand the usage of PHES as well as continuing to improve the turbine efficiency.
If further expansion of PHES is not possible, CAES could serve as a replacement due to similar
performance.
For storing energy during shorter periods of time, Li-Ion batteries or Na-S batteries are the most
viable options. High efficiency and energy density as well as low costs are all desired
characteristics. In most regards, Li-Ion batteries outperforms Na-S. Li-Ion should therefore be
considered the primary way to store energy for shorter times in Sweden, despite Li-Ion’s
slightly larger environmental impact.
2
SAMMANFATTNING
På grund av en ökad användning av förnyelsebara energikällor har även behovet av att kunna
lagra energi från tillfällen då mycket energi genereras eller efterfrågan är låg, för att sedan
kunna använda energin då efterfrågan är högre, ökat markant. Den här rapporten är menad att
jämföra olika metoder av energilagring ur ett svenskt perspektiv. Flera tekniska aspekter samt
miljömässiga och sociala påverkningar hos flera energilagringsmetoder har jämförts.
Slutsatsen som nåtts är att PHES ännu är den mest gynnsamma metoden att lagra energi baserat
på dess goda prestationer samt dess pålitlighet. I den mån det är möjligt bör Sverige därför
fortsatt försöka expander PHES samt fortsatt arbeta med att förbättra turbineffektivitet. Om
vidare expansion ej är möjligt längre är möjligt kan CAES användas för långvarig energilagring
på grund av dess liknande egenskaper.
För kortvarigare lagring är Li-Ion eller Na-S de mest gångbara alternativen. God effektivitet
och hög energidensitet samt låg kostnad är alla åtråvärda egenskaper. I de flesta av dessa
aspekter presterar Li-Ion batterier bättre än Na-S. Li-Ion bör därför vara det primära sättet att
lagra energi kortvarigt i Sverige, trots dess något större miljöpåverkan.
NOMENCLATURE
AC – Alternating Current
CAES – Compressed Air Energy System
DC – Direct Current
FES – Flywheel Energy Storage
LHS – Latent Heat Storage
Li-Ion – Lithium-Ion
Na-S – Sodium-Sulphur
PHES – Pumped Hydro Energy Storage
SHS – Sensible Heat Storage
SMES – Superconducting Magnetic
Energy Storage
TCS – Thermochemical Storage
TES – Thermal Energy Storage
UPS – Uninterrupted Power Supply
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 PURPOSE & DELIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2 ENERGY STORAGE METHODS ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 MECHANICAL ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) .......................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Flywheel Energy Storage (FES) ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) ........................................................................................... 8
2.2 ELECTRICAL ........................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) ......................................................................... 9
2.3 ELECTROCHEMICAL .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Supercapacitors ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Battery Storage Technologies ......................................................................................................... 11
2.4 CHEMICAL ............................................................................................................................................ 17
2.4.1 Power-to-Gas .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.5 THERMAL ............................................................................................................................................. 18
2.5.1 Sensible Heat Storage (SHS) ........................................................................................................... 18
2.5.2 Latent Heat Storage (LHS) .............................................................................................................. 19
2.5.3 Thermo-Chemical Storage (TCS) .................................................................................................... 20
3 COMPARISON .......................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 24
3.1.1 Technical aspects ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.1.2 Environmental impact ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.1.3 Social impact ................................................................................................................................... 25
3.1.4 Technology maturity ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.1.5 Need and availability ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 CASE STUDY – WIND FARM AT BIOTESTSJÖN ....................................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.2 Case study conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 31
4 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 FUTURE WORK ..................................................................................................................................... 32
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 33
6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 34
4
1 INTRODUCTION
Renewable sources of energy are becoming responsible for a larger share of electricity produced
all over the world. Since it is not possible to regulate when and how much electricity that is
generated from sources such as solar and wind power, a way to store the excess energy from
times of lower demand or higher production is needed. During the last century several methods
have been developed, ranging from the enormous water reservoirs of the pumped hydro energy
storage (PHES) to the modern and theoretically optimal superconducting magnetic energy
storage. Since applications and conditions vary between techniques, a comparison is necessary
to evaluate what type of energy storage is needed. Comparisons have been done before, the
intention with this bachelor of science thesis report however, is to have evaluated the results
from a “Swedish point of view”.
1.1 PURPOSE & DELIMITATIONS
This thesis has focused on energy storage from a “Swedish point of view”. General properties
such as life time, efficiency, capacity, power, energy density and response time is regarded, as
are costs, environmental and sustainability aspects, social effects and geographical
requirements. The targeted technologies are those that are ready for the market today or in the
near future. The aim for this paper is to end in a comprehensive comparison containing
necessary information and a recommendation for construction of future energy storages in
Sweden.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
This report will strictly be a literary study. Previously written papers and articles have been
used for information and technical data. Technologies with varying viability have been analysed
according to their basic properties in section 2, Energy Storage Methods, to be evaluated in
section 3, Comparison.
5
2 ENERGY STORAGE METHODS
The energy storage methods have been categorized according to their principle of storage;
mechanical, electrical, electrochemical and thermal.
2.1 MECHANICAL
The most basic way of storing energy is by doing so mechanically. This means converting
electrical energy to either potential or kinetic energy via a motor and sometimes also a pump.
An electricity generator is later used to revert the process. Mechanical methods discussed are
compressed air energy storage, flywheel energy storage and pumped hydro energy storage.
2.1.1 Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)
Invented in Germany in 1949, CAES is a technique based on the principle of conventional gas
turbine generation. As seen in Figure 1, a motor uses excess energy to pump air is pumped into
a container. The air is stored, potentially for months, in order to later be released when the
energy is needed. The technique utilizes a combination of the compressed airs potential energy
and fuel that is added to the air and ignited as it passes through the turbine [1]. Though using
man-made storage containers for the CAES is possible, such containers are more often found
in smaller scale projects. The most commonly used method is making use of underground
caverns for the container. If a suitable storage is found, for example a depleted oil or gas field,
salt caverns or aquifers the compressed air can be stored for up to a year [2].
Figure 1 Compressed Air Energy Storage; 1-motor, 2-compressor, 3-storage container, 4-turbine, 5-generator. Redrawn
from [3].
The downside of the CAES technology, apart from needing somewhere to store the compressed
air, is that during the extraction of the stored energy, a fuel is mixed with the air and combusted.
6
This resulting in environmentally-unfriendly emissions, particularly if the fuel used is fossil-
based.
The excess heat from the fumes can be used to reduce losses, but such type of CAES is relatively
new and yet not used widely.
As can be seen below in Table 1, CAES potentially offers a long-term storage for a low cost.
Table 1 Compressed Air Energy System properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density E
ffic
iency
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
30 -
350 [
2]
Gro
ws
wit
h s
tora
ge
unit
Up t
o a
yea
r [2
]
Varies greatly with
pressure, ranging
from 0.5 kWh/m3
[4] to 12 kWh/m3
[5]
70 [
2],
[5]
Min
ute
s [4
]
20 -
40 y
ears
[2],
[4
]
19 –
1,3
25 S
EK
/kW
h [
6]1
Exhausts from fuel
impacts the
environment to some
extent
2.1.2 Flywheel Energy Storage (FES)
Displayed in Figure 2, FES uses a mass rotating around an axis in order to store kinetic energy.
The faster the mass rotates, the more the energy can be stored by the flywheel. In order to
minimize losses and increase the efficiency, magnetic bearings are used and the chamber in
which the flywheel spins is often filled with helium or drained of air completely to reduce
resistances [4].
1 The price specified in the report was 2-140 €/kWh. The report was received 31 July 2015, therefore the euro to
Swedish crown conversion from that date is used [22].
7
Figure 2 Flywheel Energy Storage
Flywheels can be set in motion as well as release their energy in short periods of time. Once in
motion, stored energy will be lost at a rate of at least 20 % of the stored capacity per hour [3]
of not released. This makes them ideal for peak shaving but not that suitable for long-term
storage. As seen in Table 2 below, operating costs are still high for FES-systems.
Table 2 Flywheel Energy Storage properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
0.0
02 -
20 [
7]
0.0
01 -
0.1
[7]
Hours
[8]
0.1 [3] - 0.2
kWh/kg [4]
20 - 80 kWh/m3
[6]
90 -
95 [
4]
Sec
onds
[7]
20 y
ears
[3
], [
8]
946,2
20 –
3,7
84,8
80
SE
K/k
Wh [
6]2
Light environmental
impact
2 105–4×105 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
8
2.1.3 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES)
First used in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, around 1904, PHES is the most popular technique for
storing energy today [7]. When energy is available water is pumped from a lower reservoir to
one at a higher position, thus increasing the water’s potential energy. When the energy is needed
the water is once again released from its higher elevation to generate electricity.
This technique can store large amounts of energy, but it also needs to occupy a large area.
Ideally, two natural lakes can be used as reservoirs. More realistically, a natural lake can be
used as the lower reservoir and a manmade structure can replace the upper. Both reservoirs can
in need be manmade, though it can increase the cost dramatically.
As can be seen in Table 3 below, PHES offers short response time and a long life span, though
the storage density is relatively low compared with other technologies.
Table 3 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage
Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
<3000 [
7]
Gro
ws
wit
h s
tora
ge
unit
-
0.35 - 1.12
kWh/m3 [4]
65 -
85 [
5],
[7
]
Sec
ond
[4]
50 -
100 y
ears
95
- 6
62 S
EK
/kW
h [
6]3
May be harmful for local
nature and wildlife due to
size
3 10-70 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
9
2.2 ELECTRICAL
Storing pure electricity is challenging due to the heavy losses that are involved in doing so. The
classical example of electrical storage is the capacitor, but as it do not have the capacity or the
storage time to be useful large-scale, it have not been included in this report. A variant of the
technology, called supercapacitors or sometimes ultracapacitors, is detailed under
Electrochemical further down in section 2.3.
2.2.1 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
SMES is the theoretically optimal way to store energy. The technology uses a coil made of
superconducting material cooled to extremely low temperatures. Electricity that is fed to the
coil will remain stored without losses, provided that the coil is kept cold enough [7].
Superconducting materials change their physical properties as they are cooled below its so
called transition temperature. When kept at sufficiently cold conditions, the material has zero
electrical resistance resulting in zero losses. A simple sketch of a SMES can be seen in Figure
3, showing the three vital components; the cryogenic refrigeration unit that cools the coil, in
which the electricity is stored, and the AC/DC-converter. Losses do occur during the conversion
from alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC), which the SMES stores, and reverse,
resulting in about 90 % efficiency in the end [4].
Figure 3 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage; 1-Cryogenic refrigeration, 2-Superconducting storage system, 3-
AC/DC interface. Redrawn from [7].
10
As the energy is stored simply as electricity, charging and discharging can be done within a
moment’s notice, a desirable trait for a technology used to regulate the power grid. However,
as the size of the coil has to increase with the needs for higher power and larger quantities of
energy to be stored, issues occur when the capacity exceeds 10 MW [4]. For instance, a larger
coil results in greater heat generation and thus decreased efficiency.
The techniques required is still expensive, resulting in a high cost as can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density E
ffic
iency
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental
impact
10 [
7]
0.0
10
- 0
.030 [
7]
Up t
o a
day
[7]
40 - 60 Wh/kg [4]
0.2 - 2.5 kWh/m3
[6] 90 %
[7]
Mil
lise
conds
[7]
30 -
50000 c
ycl
es [
4]
596
,119 –
7,0
96,6
50
SE
K/k
Wh [
6]4
Light
environmental
impact
2.3 ELECTROCHEMICAL
Utilizing a combination of the electrical principles and chemical reactions, electrochemical
energy storages most notably includes different types of batteries.
2.3.1 Supercapacitors
Supercapacitors are relatively new in the market, but offer great potential due to their high
energy density and long life span [4]. The leakage of stored energy while at charged condition,
which is a common limitation, will however reduce their long term storage life. They
differentiate from regular electrical capacitors by using a fluid such as sulphuric acid or
potassium as electrolyte instead of having air or a dielectric material between the plates of the
capacitor [7], Figure 4 shows the electrolyte between the two charged electrodes. As can be
seen in Table 5, the usage of sulphuric acid may lead to some chemical disposal issues, while
4 6.3×104–7.5×105 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
11
the extremely short response time is a highlight of the technology. A basic sketch of a
supercapacitors structure can be seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Supercapacitor; Schematic. From [7].
Table 5 Supercapacitor properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage
Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
0.0
01 -
5 [
7]
0.0
01 -
0.0
1 [
7]
-
Up to 20
Wh/kg [7] 95 [
7]
Mil
lise
conds
[7]
10
4 - 1
06 c
ycl
es [
7]
45,3
94 S
EK
/kW
h
[7]5
Chemical disposal issues,
contains sulphuric acid
2.3.2 Battery Storage Technologies
Batteries are most commonly divided into two main categories; primary cells (which can only
be used once) and secondary cells, the type that can be recharged several times. The secondary
cells are therefore the most interesting type for the purpose of uninterrupted power supply
(UPS). Secondary cells can further be divided into standard secondary cells and flow batteries.
Standard secondary cells are the more commonly seen type of cell among the two, being popular
5 The price specified in the book was 7000 $/kWh. The book was available online in March 28, therefore the
USD to Swedish crown conversion from that date will be used [22].
12
in cars, computers and similar applications. They contain no mechanical parts and all required
reactants are held within the battery [7]. Flow batteries are further explained in section 2.3.2.5,
Flow Batteries.
2.3.2.1 Lithium-Ion Batteries (Li-Ion)
Due to their relatively high energy density and long life time, Li-Ion batteries have risen in
popularity over the recent year, above all in consumer electronic devises. Li-Ion batteries can
be made out of many different types of compositions for the ion incorporated, and thus, varying
in cost and function as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Comparison of Lithium-Ion battery compositions [3]
Lithium- Cathode Anode Electrolysis Energy
density
[Wh/kg]
Number
of cycles
SEK/kWh
2014
iron
phosphate
(LIP)
LIP graphite Lithium
carbonate
85-105 200 –
2,000
3,850 -
5,950
manganese
oxide (LMO)
LMO graphite Lithium
carbonate
140-180 800 –
2,000
3,150 -
4,900
titanium
dioxide (LTO)
LMO LTO Lithium
polymer
80-95 2000 –
250,000
6,300 -
15,400
Cobalt oxide
(LCO)
LCO graphite Lithium
carbonate
140-200 300 -
800
1,750 -
3,500
nickel-cobalt-
aluminium
(NCA)
NCA graphite Lithium
carbonate
120-160 800 –
5,000
1,680 -
2,660
Nickel-
Manganese-
Cobalt
(NMC)
NMC Graphite,
silicon
Lithium
carbonate
120-140 800 –
2,000
3,850 -
5,250
Li-ion batteries biggest issue for the time is that lithium, especially combined with oxygen and
the high energy density of the batteries, poses ignition hazards. Neither does lithium stand cold
very well, making it lose charge remarkably quicker [4], [7].
13
Note that the characteristics of Li-Ion as seen in Table 7 are derived from the different kind of
Li-Ion compositions, listed in Table 6.
Table 7 Lithium-Ion Batteries properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage
Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
0.0
01 -
0.1
[4]
-
Day
s [7
]
80 - 200
Wh/kg [5] [7]
200 - 500
kWh/m3 [6]
80-9
5 [
4]
-
200 -
250000 c
ycl
es [
4]
1,6
80 [
3]
- 18,8
86
SE
K/k
Wh [
6]6
Chemical disposal issues,
contains lithium
2.3.2.2 Lead-Acid Batteries
Lead-acid batteries were the first type of rechargeable batteries to be developed, based on the
reaction between lead-oxide and sulphuric acid. Their efficiency, life time, response time and
number of discharge cycles (summarized in Table 8) vary with application, number of used
cycles and temperature [7]. This tend to give lead-acid batteries a rather short life time, 1200-
2700 cycles or 5-17 years of operation [4], [3] as can be seen in Table 8.
They are however cheap and easily recycled [7]. Due to their high efficiency (of up to 90 % as
shown in Table 8), low requirement of maintenance and low energy leakage, they make good
long-term storage [3].
6 500–2000 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
14
Table 8 Lead-Acid Batteries properties P
ow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage
Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
- - -
30 Wh/kg,
180 W/kg
[3]
50 - 80
kWh/m3 [6]
75 -
90 [
3],
[7
]
-
5-1
7 y
ears
, 1,2
00 -
2,7
00
cycl
es [
4],
[3]
944 -
1,7
00 S
EK
/kW
h [
6]7
Chemical disposal issues,
contains lead
2.3.2.3 Sodium-Sulphur Batteries (Na-S)
In sodium-sulphur batteries, sodium and sulphur are heated to around 300 °C. At this point, the
sodium melts and is used as the electrodes of the battery, as can be seen in Figure 5. Once the
process is running, the heat from the reaction is enough to keep the temperature up. Modern
cells are mostly reliable but the high temperature of the battery makes ignition a possible risk.
However, sodium-sulphur batteries have the advantages of being made out of inexpensive and
non-toxic materials and being highly efficient [3], and having a very fast response time, as can
be seen in Table 9.
7 100–830 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
15
Figure 5 Sodium-Sulphur Battery; 1-Sulphur electrode, 2-Solid beta alumina ceramic electrolyte, 3-Sodium electrode.
Redrawn from [3].
Table 9 Sodium-Sulphur Batteries properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
0.0
5 [
7]
0.4
[7]
-
60 Wh/kg [4]
156 - 255
kWh/m3 [6] 80 -
85 [
4]
Mil
lise
conds
[7]
15 y
ears
or
4,5
00 c
ycl
es [
4]
4,8
00 S
EK
/kW
h [
4]
Light environmental
impact
2.3.2.4 Nickel-based Batteries
All types of nickel-based batteries share a common positive electrode (nickel hydroxide) and
the same electrolyte (a solution of potassium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide). The material
of the negative electrode varies, where the most commonly used is cadmium, while zinc and
iron are options too [3], [7]. Though cadmium is highly toxic [7], nickel-cadmium batteries
16
have the advantage of a very low discharge rate and therefore also a rather long storage period,
as can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10 Nickel-based Batteries properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage
Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental impact
0.5
- 5
0 [
4],
[7
]
-
Month
s [7
]
50 - 80
Wh/kg [3]
60 - 150
kWh/m3 [6] 70 -
90 [
4],
[7
]
-
10
-20 y
ears
, <
300 c
ycl
es [
7],
[3]
4,2
49 -
16,9
97 S
EK
/kW
h [
6]8
Chemical disposal issues, for
the types containing cadmium
2.3.2.5 Flow Batteries
Flow batteries differentiate from other battery technologies in term of construction. The cell of
the battery does not carry the reactants internally, but instead they are stored in external
reservoirs and pumped through the cell when needed. The advantage of this is that the reservoirs
can be increased in size, and by that capacity, at a relatively low cost [7]. As summarized in
Table 11, their life time and response time are satisfactory and neither do they suffer from self-
discharge [4], [5].
8 450–1800 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
17
Table 11 Flow Batteries properties P
ow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental
impact
0.0
5 -
15 [
4],
[5
]
120 [
5]
16 - 33 kWh/m3
[6] 75 [
5]
- 85 [
4]
Mil
lise
conds
[4]
-
1,0
39 -
9,4
43 S
EK
/kW
h
[6]9
Chemical disposal
issues
2.4 CHEMICAL
Storing energy chemically is another rather new method with great potential, most notably
including the so called Power-to-Gas method. Issues regarding production and storage of the
gases still pose issues for commercial usage.
2.4.1 Power-to-Gas
The technique of using excess electricity to produce gases such as hydrogen or methane is
generally called power-to-gas. Hydrogen can, for example, be produced by the electrolysis of
water. Hydrogen is attractive as an energy storage medium because it is cheap and has a decent
energy storage density, as can be seen in Table 12. Hydrogen can be transported used as the
fuel in either thermal power plants or fuel cells. Either way the rest product is only water [7]
and the environmental impact is therefore very small.
Table 12 Power-to-Gas properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental
impact
9 110-1000 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
18
1 -
100 [
9]
Gro
ws
wit
h s
tora
ge
unit
Day
s [3
]
2.7 - 160 kWh/m3 at
1 - 700 bar [6]
62 -
82 [
4]
Sec
- m
in [
4]
-
19 -
142 S
EK
/kW
h [
6]1
0
Light environmental
impact
2.5 THERMAL
Thermal energy storage (TES) stores either heat or cold to use at a later time. Heat from
industries can be stored during summer to provide warmth during winter, cold can be saved
winter time by e.g. hockey rinks to cool during the summer. Alternatively the heat from solar
power plants can also be converted to electricity. TES can be further divided into sensible heat
storage, latent heat storage and thermochemical storage [10].
2.5.1 Sensible Heat Storage (SHS)
With SHS, energy is stored by heating a mass, either solid or fluid, that does not change state
during the process [5]. If used for electricity storage purposes, the heat is recovered via the
production of water vapour which drives a turbo-alternator system [6]. It is today the most
commonly used type of thermal storage, using either a liquid like water, synthetic oils or molten
salts as the storage medium, or a solid medium such as rocks or ceramics [10]. Operating
temperature is most often between 200-300 °C for low temperature storages and up to 1400 °C
for hot storages [6]. Molten salt, which as of now, is considered the best thermal storage medium
for solar power plant applications and operates at temperatures of up to 850 °C [11].
SHS tends to suffer from low energy density, where they also struggle with losses due to the
required temperature difference for the heat transfer driving force [6]. If paired with thermal
solar plants, the cost of the stored energy can be pushed extremely low, as seen in Table 13.
10 2-15 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
19
Table 13 Sensible Heat Storage properties P
ow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental
impact
50 [
10]
Gro
ws
wit
h s
tora
ge
unit
Varies with
temperature and
material
- - -
1 S
EK
/kW
h
[12]
2.5.2 Latent Heat Storage (LHS)
LHS makes use of phase change materials (PCMs) to store the thermal energy, in terms of latent
heat of fusion. Therefore the considerable amounts of energy that is used or released when a
material changes its phase is stored. LHS uses almost exclusively the solid to liquid phase
change due to being more efficient and easier to handle than other phase changes [6]. The
world’s most common PCM is water, more specifically the phase change of ice to water. An
example of a facility using water for LHS is the hospital in Sundsvall, Sweden. The hospital
collects snow in the winter, to later in the year use the cold for cooling [13]. A more detailed
description of the process can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Latent Heat Storage; Hospital of Sundsvall. Translated from [13]
20
Another popular PCM for LHS purposes is sodium hydroxide. The material is highly corrosive,
complicating the recycling process, but the high fusion temperature of the material, high-
temperature stability and low steam pressure makes it very attractive as a thermal medium [5].
LHS generally has a higher storage density when compared to SHS [11], especially LHS using
PCMs with high fusion temperatures as the energy density of the PCM generally increases with
its temperature [6].
Table 14 Latent Heat Storage properties
Pow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental
impact
Varies with
temperature and
PCM
Highly dependent
on the PCM
2.5.3 Thermo-Chemical Storage (TCS)
TCS uses chemicals that absorbs and releases large amounts of thermal energy when reacting.
[6], [11]. If the reaction is hindered from occurring, long time can pass from charging at low
demand to discharging at higher demand without significant losses [6].
There are several different chemical components and reactions that can be used for TCS. The
main requirement in TCS is that it needs to be a reversible chemical reactions involving
absorbing and releasing a large amount of heat. A simple reaction which is easily replicated
gets more efficient than a complicated one, as is a reaction with a higher enthalpy change more
efficient than a reaction with lower enthalpy change [11]. As can be seen in Table 15, the storage
density of TCS is quite high, combined with a low cost it makes further research of TCS
attractive.
21
Table 15 Thermo-Chemical Storage properties P
ow
er [
MW
]
Cap
acit
y [
MW
h]
Sto
rage
Per
iod
Storage Density
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
Res
ponse
tim
e
Lif
e S
pan
Cost
Environmental
impact
Day
s -
month
s [6
]
1120 - 1250
kWh/m3 [6]
76 -
944
SE
K/k
Wh
[6]1
1
11 8-100 €/kWh as of 31 July 2015 [22].
22
3 COMPARISON
Following Table 16 is a comprehensive compilation of the technical data that have been
collected, and previously included in the subsections of 2, Energy Storage Methods. Below in
section 3.1, Discussion, these characteristics are further discussed and evaluated. The
characteristics have been chosen to reflect the various needs of the market, from technical
details such as power, capacity and efficiency, to social consequences such as cost of the energy
stored and environmental impacts.
23
Table 16 Comparison table
Power
[MW]
Capacity
[MWh]
Storage
Period Storage Density
Efficiency
[%]
Response
time Life Span
Cost
[SEK/kWh] Environmental impact
CAES 30 - 350
[2]
Grows with
storage unit Months [2]
Varies greatly with pressure, ranging
from 0.5 kWh/m3 [4] to 12 kWh/m3 [5]
70 [2], [5] Minutes [4] 20 - 40 years [2], [4] 19 - 1,325 [6] Exhausts from fuel combustion impacts
the environment to some extent
FES 0.002 - 20
[7] 0.001 - 0.1 [7] Hours [8]
100 [3] - 200 Wh/kg [4]
20 - 80 kWh/m3 [6] 90 - 95 [4] Seconds [7] 20 years [3], [8]
946,220 -
3,784,880 [6] Light environmental impact
PHES <3000 [7] Grows with
storage unit - 0.35 - 1.12 kWh/m3 [4]
65 - 85 [5],
[7] Sec-min [4] 50 - 100 years 95 - 662 [6]
May be harmful for local nature and
wildlife due to size
SMES 10 [7] 0.01 - 0.030 [7] Hours -
Days [7]
40 - 60 Wh/kg [4]
0.2 - 2.5 kWh/m3 [6] 90 % [7]
Milliseconds
[7] 30 - 50,000 cycles [4]
596,119 -
7,096,650 [6] Light environmental impact
Supercapacitors 0.001 - 5
[7] 0.001 - 0.01 [7] - Up to 20 Wh/kg [7] 95 [7]
Milliseconds
[7] 104 - 106 cycles [7] 45,394 [7] Chemical disposal issues
Li-Ion 0.001 - 0.1
[4] - Days [7]
80 - 200 Wh/kg [5] [7]
200 - 500 kWh/m3 [6] 80 - 95 [4] - 200 - 250,000 [4]
1,680 [3] - 18,86
[6] Chemical disposal issues
Lead-Acid - - - 30 Wh/kg, 180 W/kg [3]
50 - 80 kWh/m3 [6]
75 - 90 [3],
[7] -
5 - 17 years, 1200 -
2700 cycles [4] [3] 944 - 1,700 [6]
Light environmental impact if recycled
properly, contains lead-acid
Na-S 0.05 [7] 0.4 [7] - 60 Wh/kg [4]
156 - 255 kWh/m3 [6] 80 - 85 [4]
Milliseconds
[7]
15 years
4,500 cycles [4]
4800 [4]
Light environmental impact
Nickel-based 0.5 - 50
[4], [7] - Months [7]
50 - 80 Wh/kg [3]
60-150 kWh/m3 [6]
70 - 90 [4],
[7] -
10 - 20 years, <300
cycles [7], [3]
4,249 - 16,997
[6] Chemical disposal issues
Flow batteries 0.05 - 15
[4], [5] 120 [5] - 16 - 33 kWh/m3 [6]
75 [5] - 85
[4]
Milliseconds
[4] - 1,039 - 9,443 [6] Chemical disposal issues
Power-to-Gas 1 - 100 [9] Grows with
storage unit Days [3] 2.7 - 160 kWh/m3 at 1 - 700 bar [6] 62 - 82 [4] Sec-min [4] - 19 - 142 [6] Light environmental impact
SHS 50 [10] Grows with
storage unit
Months
[12] Varies with temperature and material - - -
1
[12]
LHS - - - Varies with temperature and material - - - -
TCS - - Days [6] 1,120 - 1,250 kWh/m3 [6] - - - 76 - 944 [6]
24
3.1 DISCUSSION
Different techniques differentiate in areas such as technical aspects, environmental impact,
social impact and technology maturity level. All of these factors, as well as the application area,
weigh in when an energy storage system is chosen as there is none storage option that covers
every need.
3.1.1 Technical aspects
Although there are a lot of technical differences between the different storage technologies,
they are not always the most important factor when deciding for an energy storage option.
Sometimes, the technical aspects have little importance by themselves, but can affect for
example the price of the stored energy.
The power describes how much energy that can be released at a time. Having the energy storage
match its source in terms of power is therefore a good idea for UPS purposes. But even if the
differences between e.g. Li-Ion batteries and PHES, as can be seen in Table 16, can be
seemingly huge, smaller installations such as batteries and FES can be connected in series in
order to raise their combined power. The power outage of the energy storage is therefore
important, but not an impossible obstacle.
Similarly, as some technologies’ storage capacities can be expanded through sheer size, smaller
ones can be connected to each other to provide a larger capacity of energy stored. More
important at that point is the energy storage density of the technology, as it describes how much
energy one can store in a given volume (or mass). Modern batteries, such as Li-Ion and Na-S,
have excellent energy density which opens up for the possibility of storing energy closer to the
consumer which may be advantageous. Having a high energy density also means that smaller
facilities can be used, having a positive impact on the energy’s price as a finished product. Apart
from things such as expensive components and chemicals, the efficiency and life span of an
energy storage also affect the resulting price. With a higher efficiency, less energy is lost during
the storage period allowing for a lower price. Likewise, an energy storage with long life time,
like PHES which can remain functional for up to a hundred years, can store energy at a
substantially lower cost than a storage which needs to be replaced more often, such as Na-S
batteries which only lasts for about 15 years.
25
3.1.2 Environmental impact
No energy storage methods comes without environmental impact, even if the method does not
affect the environment while operating chemicals and components always need to be produced
and recycled to some environmental cost as either raw materials or pollution from the
production. More notable are those that directly impact the environment as they operate. For
example, the most commonly used energy storage in Sweden, PHES, occupies large parts of
the surrounding area, disturbing wildlife and the connected eco-systems. Hydroelectric power
plants have been built in Sweden to the extent that the streams suitable for PHES installations
still remaining with large capacities are protected as nature reserves and due to social protests
[14]. It is therefore believed that efficiency improvements will have a larger impact on Swedish
PHES than further extension.
Similar in occupying large areas is CAES. Unlike PHES the method makes use of already
existing underground caves, reducing the visible impact. For efficiency reasons, CAES requires
using fuel to mix with the air, releasing fumes contributing to air pollution and the greenhouse
effect. For a more environmentally friendly CAES-system, fossil-based fuels could be replaced
by biofuel of some kind, hopefully reducing the amounts of pollutions released. Systems could
also be added to make better use of the heat from the combusted fuel, which otherwise will be
lost.
An attribute shared among several types of battery energy storages is chemical disposal issues
as they all rely on chemical components to react. The exceptions of this mainly being Na-S
batteries as these are made out of non-toxic materials that are easy to recycle. Lead-acid
batteries can be considered easily recycled to some extent, but the lead in them poses a threat
to eco-systems at leaks and ultimate disposal.
Depending on the thermal medium chosen, all of the TES technologies may or may not impact
the environment. Several thermal mediums leaves little to none environmental impact if
handled properly, such as water that can be released if needed once cooled down or liquid salt
and solids such as concrete that are easily recycled. Other mediums, such as synthetic oils and
chemicals for TCS may be more difficult to recycle.
3.1.3 Social impact
All energy storage systems will in some way be noticed by the public. The price to store the
energy differs between technologies, affecting the price the consumer has to pay for the
electricity or thermal energy. Although most can be hidden in industrial areas in the outskirts
26
of cities, some draws greater attention. The most notable one being PHES, as noted above in
3.1.2, which is hindered by social protests due to their large social and environmental impact
on the local area. Another exception is CAES which tends to utilize caves and mines on the
countryside.
As the ground serves as an insulator, TES with SHS can favour greatly from being buried,
making thermal energy storages naturally hidden. High temperature SHS does however pose a
risk in case that an accident would occur, as some materials are heated above 1000 °C. A
leakage could potentially cause substantial damage to the employees, and to the nearby area as
well as the environment.
Some batteries, such as Li-Ion and Na-S, includes reactants which may behave violent. Most
modern Li-Ion cells keeps the lithium bound at all times keeping it from igniting. In Japan,
2012, a fire was reportedly caused by a Na-S battery [7].
Aside from the physical form of the energy storage, the factor with the greatest effect on the
public is the cost of the energy stored. As mentioned in section 3.1.1, Technical aspects, the
price of the stored energy is decided by many different factors. Table 17 lists the technologies
from potentially cheapest to most expensive.
Table 17 Cost of energy stored in SEK/kWh
Technology Cost [SEK/kWh]
1 Sensible Heat Storage (SHS) 1
2 Power-to-Gas 19 - 142
3 Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) 19 – 1,325
4 Thermo-Chemical Storage (TCS) 76 - 944
5 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) 95 - 662
6 Lead-Acid 944 - 1,700
7 Flow batteries 1,039 - 9,443
8 Lithium-Ion batteries (Li-Ion) 1,680 - 18,886
9 Nickel-based batteries 4,249 - 16,997
10 Sodium-Sulphur batteries (Na-S) 4,800
11 Supercapacitors 45,394
12 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) 596,119 - 7,096,650
13 Flywheel energy storage (FES) 946,220 - 3,784,880
27
When studying Table 17, it stands clear that storing thermal energy is highly cost efficient,
regrettably no details regarding the price of LHS have been found. One can also see that it is
cheaper storing energy using long term options such as CAES and PHES, the exception of this
being Power-to-gas which has the potential to store gas at a very low cost despite not being as
mature as several other techniques on the list.
The medium range price class in Table 17 is occupied with electro-chemical options, with
SMES and FES being the most expensive by some margin.
3.1.4 Technology maturity
Most technologies listed are to some degree under development. Below in Table 18 is a rough
listing of the most promising technologies in term of technology maturity. PHES is the most
commonly used as well as the most mature technique.
Table 18 Technology maturity level listing. Based on [4].
Technology maturity
1 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES)
2 Lithium-Ion Batteries (Li-Ion)
3 Lead-Acid Batteries
4 Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)
5 Sodium Sulphur batteries (Na-S)
6 Flywheel energy storage (FES)
7 Flow Batteries
8 Supercapacitors
9 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
10 Power-to-Gas
Similar to PHES, but not quite as mature, is CAES. Although CAES have been operating on
the market since 1978, there are very few CAES-facilities operating in the world [2]. Despite
reliability at a satisfactory-level, it fills a similar role in energy storage as the more favoured
PHES. PHES have long been considered an easier method when compared to CAES, which
may be a reason for the humble usage of CAES to this point.
In terms of batteries, the most mature options for UPS-applications are lead-acid batteries, Na-
S batteries and Li-Ion batteries. Lead-acid batteries are popular to be used along with small
28
scale energy production, such as domestic solar or wind power. Due to their unreliable nature,
short life span and shallow discharge depth, they are not yet optimal for UPS [4]. Li-Ion
batteries are popular due to their high energy density and their area efficiency, as large storage
capacities can be kept in smaller facilities [4]. The technique has during the recent years been
introduced to the market, a nearby example is a facility in the UK’s Okney Islands, outside the
coast of Scotland, where a 2 MW Li-Ion battery is installed and was taken into operation in
2013 [7]. There is also a smaller facility already installed in Sweden, Falköping, a 75 kW Li-
Ion is used to regulate the locally produced energy from wind turbines [15]. Na-S offers similar
qualities as Li-Ion, although not as mature and therefore tend to underperform in comparison
with Li-Ion in several categories. The technique is to some extent commercialised in Asia [7]
but further development may improve safety.
A mechanical contestant to the various batteries is FES, a short-term energy storage in
development offering similar qualities such as short reaction time and high energy density
which is ideal for peak shaving. The technique has to some degree been introduced to the market
with several operating facilities in both Europe and America [8]. High energy density and good
performance are highlights for the method, but high storage costs makes the technique quite
expensive.
In terms of thermal energy storage, a widely used method is thermal SHS with Spain and U.S.A.
being the two main users [11]. SHS is commonly paired with thermal solar plants, the climate
in Sweden does not, however, favour this method for UPS. Larger facilities, such as industries
and residential areas, can also use SHS as seasonal thermal storage, saving heat in the summer
to release in the winter and vice versa. Notable users already operating in Sweden includes
Stockholm Arlanda Airport [16] and the Anneberg residential area [12]. Similarly, LHS is also
being used by facilities such as hospitals, as mentioned in section 2.5.2, Latent Heat Storage
(LHS).
Thermal storage in Sweden does not however seem to be fit for UPS applications and should
be kept as storages for cooling or heating.
3.1.5 Need and availability
Sweden is investing more and more in renewable sources of energy, and thus is in great need
of both long-term and short-term storage. With the practically available capacity of PHES being
increasingly restricetd (as mentioned in 3.1.2) the remaining contestants of the long-term role
are lead-acid batteries and CAES. Sweden have a long history of mining, which may be
29
favourable when trying to find a cavern suitable for acting as storage for a CAES-facility,
though I have not found any studies or investigations of the subject. Lead-acid batteries can
also serve as long-term storage, but they need more development before commercial use is an
option.
TES is interesting for Sweden, not mainly for UPS purposes but as temperatures in Sweden
ranges greatly from summer to winter a great amount of energy can be stored and thus saved
when used as a seasonal thermal storage. The Arlanda Airport Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage
reportedly offer 10 GWh per year in terms of district heating [17].
Regarding short-term energy storage, two types of batteries are to some degree introduced to
the market, namely Li-Ion and Na-S batteries. A Li-Ion battery is (as noted in 3.1.4) already
installed in Sweden since 2013 and can therefore be seen as a proven concept. Na-S batteries
are used all over the world, either combined with wind turbines or used for UPS services.
In Germany, 2013, Younicos and Vattenfall opened up a combined Na-S and Li-Ion battery
with a capacity of 1 MW in a joint pilot project. The battery was the first large-scale battery to
be integrated in the European electricity balancing market [18].
FES is today mostly used in a smaller scale, such as hospitals and factories. There are exceptions
though, like the Mainstream Renewable Power flywheel storage in Ireland, a 2 MW FES storing
electricity when the demand on the local wind turbines are low [19].
3.2 CASE STUDY – WIND FARM AT BIOTESTSJÖN
In 2007 Vattenfall applied for permission to
build a wind farm close to the nuclear power
plant Forsmark kraftverk, at the Biotestsjön
Lake, about 15 km north west from Öregrund.
The wind farm would have a combined power
of 2.3 MW and could generate a total of 105
GWh per year [20]. With the nuclear power
plant nearby, the wind farm would be a great
way to supply extra power at times of high
demand on the power grid. To ensure that the wind farm can supply power whenever needed,
combining it with an energy storage system would be a good idea.
Figure 7 Vattenfall plans to build a wind farm by Forsmark
nuclear power plant. Photo by Christoffer Ågstrand.
30
The main application for the energy storage would be to store energy from night time, when the
demand is low, to day time when demand gets higher. Therefore, a storage period ranging from
a few hours to at most a few days would be enough.
As the location, Biotestsjön, is a manmade lake formed at the outlet of the power plant’s cooling
canal the temperature in the lake is six to eight degrees above the temperature of the surrounding
sea, making it a unique opportunity to study the correlations between water temperature and
biological processes [21]. As the area serves for research purposes as well as a home for wild
life such as eagles, keeping the environmental impacts of the energy storage would be highly
important.
3.2.1 Approach
As both PHES and CAES affect their immediate surrounding area, and as none of the optimal
conditions for these technologies seems to be met, none of them are to be considered as an
option for the wind farm’s energy storage. As mentioned in 3.1.4, Technology maturity, the
viable options remaining are Li-Ion batteries, lead-acid batteries, Na-S batteries and FES.
Below in Table 19 the information regarding said technologies from Table 16 are repeated for
easier comparison.
Table 19 Case study energy storage options
Li-Ion Lead-acid Na-S FES
Power [MW] 0.001 - 0.1 - 0.05 0.002 - 20
Capacity [MWh] - - 0.4 0.001 - 0.1
Storage period Days - - Hours
Storage density 80 - 200 Wh/kg,
200 - 500 kWh/m3
30 Wh/kg, 50 - 80
kWh/m3
60 Wh/kg, 156 -
255 kWh/m3
100 - 200 Wh/kg,
20 -80 kWh/m3
Efficiency [% ] 80 - 95 75 - 90 80 - 85 90 - 95
Response time - - Milliseconds Seconds
Life span 200 - 250,000
cycles
5 - 17 years, 1,200
- 2,700 cycles
15 years, 4500
cycles
20 years
Cost [SEK/kWh] 1,680 - 18,886 944 - 1’700 4,800 946,220 -
3,784,880
Environmental
impact
Chemical disposal
issues
Chemical disposal
issues
Light impact if
recycled properly
Light impact
All of the technologies in Table 19 could be viable options for the wind park’s energy storage.
The one performing poorest amongst the technologies, apart from being much cheaper, is the
31
lead-acid option. The benefits of lead acid batteries in this case would be their favourable price
and light local environmental impact, provided that no leakage of lead to the nearby nature
occur. Final disposal of the lead would in the end affect the environment, but probably in
another location. The wind farms’ crucial need for reliability and the technology’s weak
performance in general does however outweigh these benefits and make lead acid poor option.
Out of the remaining three, Li-Ion is by far the more commonly used. It can potentially match
FES in terms of energy density and efficiency, as well as Na-S in terms of costs. Li-Ion is
however the option with the largest environmental impact, also including the threat of ignition
which might bring large risks to the nearby power plant as well as environment. Any
investigations regarding the nuclear plants’ safety concerns in case of fires has not been done
with this case study.
Na-S has less environmental impact than Li-Ion as the components are easier to recycle. In
terms of life span, efficiency and energy density, Na-S falls off compared with Li-Ion and FES,
aside from having similar safety concerns as Li-Ion. Pricewise, Na-S is comparable with Li-Ion
or cheaper and substantially less expensive than FES.
FES offers high energy density and efficiency, and it doesn’t affect the environment much once
it is up and running. Despite being a relatively mature technology, as mentioned in 3.1.4
Technology maturity, it still comes at a much higher price than other technologies. The self-
discharge rate is also quite high with efficiency dropping to about 78 % after five hours [5].
3.2.2 Case study conclusion
Not one energy storage option mentioned seems to fit perfectly for the case study. The deciding
factor is very likely the security aspect of the nearby nuclear power plant, Forsmark. If
considered a safe option, a Li-Ion battery would probably be the option to best fit the conditions
due to the techniques good performance and cost. Would the situation require a safer storage
option that would rule out Na-S as well, leaving FES as the remaining option, albeit a very
expensive one.
32
4 CONCLUSION
For long term storage, PHES is the strongest contestant yet and should be the main choice due
to the maturity of the technology. If expanding PHES further is not possible the options are the
unreliable but easily recycled lead-acid batteries or the fossil fuel-reliant CAES which also
requires a suitable container. If it was to turn out that cavities in Sweden are suitable for CAES
it seems to be the more favourable option, this due to the lower cost, superior life span and high
power capacity.
For short term energy storage, Li-Ion batteries or Na-S seems to be the best options. Though
Li-Ion batteries outperforms Na-S batteries in terms of energy density, efficiency and lifespan,
Na-S batteries are not too far behind. Na-S batteries are also much easier to recycle than Li-Ion,
making them the better option from an environmental point of view.
FES are interesting due to their higher power outage and good energy density, but seems to be
too expensive to use for the time being.
Outside of UPS purposes, TES seems to be a potentially cost effective and environmentally
friendly option for heating and cooling of facilities.
4.1 FUTURE WORK
Closer studies of several fields in this thesis would provide much needed information which
have been left out. Most notably are geographical conditions of PHES and CAES. How much
potential for further expansion of PHES is there left and is any of the mines in Sweden suitable
for CAES?
As this thesis have mainly been focused on established technologies, further investigation could
also be done regarding what is about to come. As mentioned in section 3.1.2, Environmental
impact, CAES could use additional systems to make use of otherwise lost heat. Depending of
if such a feature could successfully be implemented in five years or in twenty years, the social
and environmental impacts could change drastically.
Other technologies being in the outer borders of maturity, such as FES, supercapacitors and
Power-to-Gas, could also hit breakthroughs in the near future which might affect their influence
on the market.
33
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am very grateful to have had both of my advisers, Justin Chiu and Saman Nimali Gunasekara,
helping me through this report. I thank Justin Chiu for giving me a great start to my work, you
helped me understand the goal of my work from the beginning and gave me the starting point
to make it possible to finish through. And I thank Saman Nimali Gunasekara for being there for
me at all times. You have been a constant source of encouragement, help and constructive
feedback, which without I could never have written this report.
I would also like to thank the “KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management” for
providing me with the chance of writing this Bachelor of Science thesis report, and last but not
least I would like to thank Catharina Erlich for the trouble you went through helping me find a
wonderful subject to write my thesis about.
Felix Söderström
Author
34
6 REFERENCES
[1] A. Cavallo, “Controllable and affordable utility-scale electricity from intermittent wind
resources and compressed air energy storage (CAES),” 2005.
[2] H. Chen, X. Zhang, J. Liu and C. Tan , “Compressed Air Energy Storage,” INTECH,
2013.
[3] I. Hadjipaschalis, A. Poullikkas and V. Efthimiou, “Overview of current and future
energy storage technologies for electric power applications,” Electricity Authority of
Cyprus, 2008.
[4] A. Nordling, R. Englund, A. Hembjer and A. Mannberg , “Energilagring - Teknik för
lagring av el,” Kungl. Ingenjörsvetenskapsakademien (IVA), 2015.
[5] H. Ibrahim, A. Ilinca and J. Perron, “Energy storage systems - Characteristics and
comparisons,” Elsevier Ltd, 2007.
[6] H. Zhang, J. Baeyens, G. Cáceres, J. Degrève and Y. Lv, “Thermal energy storage:
Recent developments and practical aspects,” Elsevier Ltd., 2015.
[7] P. Breeze, “Chapter 10 - Power System Energy Storage Technologies,” in Power
Generation Technologies (Second Edition), 2nd ed., Elsevier Ltd, 2014, p. 195–221.
[8] R. Hebner, J. Beno and A. Walls, “Flywheel Batteries Comes Around Again,” IEEE
Spectrum, 2002.
[9] S. B. Walker, U. Mukherjee, M. Fowler and A. Elkamel, “Benchmarking and selection
of Power-to-Gas utilizing electrolytic hydrogen as an energy storage alternative,”
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, 2015.
[10] S. Kuravi, J. Trahan, D. Y. Goswami, M. M. Rahman and E. K. Stefanakos, “Thermal
energy storage technologies and systems for concentrating solar power plats,” Elsevier
Ltd., 2012.
35
[11] Y. Tian and C. Zhao, “A Review of Solar Colletor and Thermal Energy Storage in Solar
Thermal Applications,” 2012.
[12] J.-O. Dalenbäck, J. Dahm, S.-E. Lundin, G. Hellström and B. Nordell, “Solar Heated
Residental Area Anneberg,” 2000.
[13] “Snowpower,” Snowpower AB, 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.snowpower.se/sundsvalls-kylanlaggning.asp. [Accessed 14 06 2016].
[14] J. Henriksson, “Striden om Vindelälven - Början till slutet på den svenska
vattenkraftsutbyggnaden,” Luleå Tekniska Universitet, 2004.
[15] “DOE Global Energy Storage Database,” Sandia Corporation, 18 06 2012. [Online].
Available: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/113. [Accessed 12 05 2016].
[16] O. Andersson, “www.slideshare.net,” 2 December 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.slideshare.net/SGU_Sverige/olof-andersson-akviferlager-arlandatermisk-
resurspdf. [Accessed 1 Maj 2016].
[17] “DOE Global Energy Storage Database,” Sandia Corporation, 18 08 2014. [Online].
Available: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/1487. [Accessed 12 05
2016].
[18] “DOE Global Energy Storage Database,” Sandia Corporation, 10 09 2013. [Online].
Available: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/605. [Accessed 19 05 2016].
[19] “DOE Energy Storage Global Database,” Sandia Corporation, 02 03 2016. [Online].
Available: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/2067. [Accessed 19 05
2016].
[20] M. U. Län, “Ansökan om tillstånd enligt 9 kap. miljöbalken (MB) till gruppstation för
vindkraft på fastigheterna Forsmark 6:5 och 6:8 i Östhammars kommun,” Länsstyrelsen
Uppsala Län, Uppsala, 2012.
[21] Vattenfall, “Biotestsjön - ett forskningsakvarium i jätteformat,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.visitforsmark.se/sommar/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/biotestsjön_folder_2014_webb.pdf. [Accessed 21 05 2016].
36
[22] “Oanda,” OANDA Corporation, [Online]. Available:
https://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/. [Accessed 15 05 2016].