Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Not just blowing in the wind: Compressing air for renewable energy storage [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)9. Poor little nuclear loving wtmusic...
You would rather live in an alternate reality than admit that all the pieces are in place for a carbon free/nuclear free world, wouldn't you?
2.4.3.2. Round Trip Efficiency
A CAES unit powered by wind energy will be compared to other electrical storage options that might be considered for wind back up such as electrochemical or pumped hydroelectric storage. Such alternative storage systems are typically characterized by a roundtrip electrical storage efficiency ηRT defined as
ηRT = (electricity output)/(electricity input).
To facilitate comparisons of CAES to other electrical storage devices, a round trip efficiency can be introduced that employs an effective electricity input ≡ EM + ηNG*EF. The second term is the amount of electricity that could be have been made from the natural gas input EF, had that fuel been used to make electricity in a stand-alone power plant at efficiency ηNG instead of to fire a CAES unit. ...
For typical natural gas power systems, (heat rates in the range 6700-9400 kJ/kWh) CAES roundtrip efficiencies are in the range of 77-89% assuming a 1.5 ratio of output to input electricity and a heat rate of 4220 kJ LHV per kWh. An exergy analysis of conventional CAES systems indicates that 47.6% of the fuel energy input is converted into electrical work [71]. For this measure of the thermal efficiency, the roundtrip efficiency is 81.7%.
An alternative formulation ηRT,2 of an electrical roundtrip storage efficiency introduces an output correction term EF*ηNG. Instead of expressing the fuel input as an effective electrical input, the electrical output is adjusted by subtracting the assumed contribution to the output attributable to the fuel. Correspondingly the output attributable to the electrical input is ET - EF*ηNG [72].
Using the same assumptions as for ηRT,1 with the Zaugg efficiency for fuel conversion, ηNG = 47.6%, the round trip efficiency is 66%.
Thus, depending on the index chosen for its measure, the roundtrip efficiency for CAES is typically in the range 66-82%. This is in the same range as the roundtrip efficiencies cited for other bulk energy storage technologies such as pumped hydroelectric storage (74%) and Vanadium flow batteries (75%)
A CAES unit powered by wind energy will be compared to other electrical storage options that might be considered for wind back up such as electrochemical or pumped hydroelectric storage. Such alternative storage systems are typically characterized by a roundtrip electrical storage efficiency ηRT defined as
ηRT = (electricity output)/(electricity input).
To facilitate comparisons of CAES to other electrical storage devices, a round trip efficiency can be introduced that employs an effective electricity input ≡ EM + ηNG*EF. The second term is the amount of electricity that could be have been made from the natural gas input EF, had that fuel been used to make electricity in a stand-alone power plant at efficiency ηNG instead of to fire a CAES unit. ...
For typical natural gas power systems, (heat rates in the range 6700-9400 kJ/kWh) CAES roundtrip efficiencies are in the range of 77-89% assuming a 1.5 ratio of output to input electricity and a heat rate of 4220 kJ LHV per kWh. An exergy analysis of conventional CAES systems indicates that 47.6% of the fuel energy input is converted into electrical work [71]. For this measure of the thermal efficiency, the roundtrip efficiency is 81.7%.
An alternative formulation ηRT,2 of an electrical roundtrip storage efficiency introduces an output correction term EF*ηNG. Instead of expressing the fuel input as an effective electrical input, the electrical output is adjusted by subtracting the assumed contribution to the output attributable to the fuel. Correspondingly the output attributable to the electrical input is ET - EF*ηNG [72].
Using the same assumptions as for ηRT,1 with the Zaugg efficiency for fuel conversion, ηNG = 47.6%, the round trip efficiency is 66%.
Thus, depending on the index chosen for its measure, the roundtrip efficiency for CAES is typically in the range 66-82%. This is in the same range as the roundtrip efficiencies cited for other bulk energy storage technologies such as pumped hydroelectric storage (74%) and Vanadium flow batteries (75%)
Compressed Air Energy Storage, Succar and Williams April 2008
http://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/SuccarWilliams_PEI_CAES_2008April8.pdf

Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Not just blowing in the wind: Compressing air for renewable energy storage [View all]
OKIsItJustMe
May 2013
OP
Naturally there are losses… the question is whether they are acceptable or not
OKIsItJustMe
May 2013
#3
It's like hydro but with huge thermal losses. It might be good for special situations.
Gregorian
May 2013
#5
CAES figured prominently in Scientific American’s “Solar Grand Plan” in 2008
OKIsItJustMe
May 2013
#6
No prob if it's solar. That's a whole different ballgame. I assumed worst case- fossil.
Gregorian
May 2013
#8
Well, if you don't believe it then all those academics and researchers must be wrong.
kristopher
May 2013
#13
I am in the presence of greatness. Sorry that it wasn't as obvious to me as it should have been.
BlueStreak
May 2013
#24
Denholm was writing "studies" about this years ago. Lovins was handing out this bull in the 1970's
NNadir
May 2013
#23
The larger problem has been dipshits pretending that a few nuclear plants will do anything...
kristopher
May 2013
#28