Anda di halaman 1dari 87

An Assessment of SecondGeneration Compressed Air

Energy Storage Concepts

F. R. Zaloudek
R. W. Reilly

July 1982

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy


under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
by Battelle Memorial Institute

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect thoseof the United
States Government or any agency thereof.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY


operated by
BATTELLE
for the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 7830

Printed in the United States of America


Available from
National Technical Information Service
United States Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. Virginia 22151
NTIS Price Codes
Microfiche A01
Printed Copy
Pages

Price
Codes

AN ASSESSMENT OF SECONDGENERATION COMPRESSED A I R


ENERGY STORAGE CONCEPTS

F. R. Zaloudek
R. W. R e i l l y

J u l y 1982
Work Compl eted September 1 981
Prepared f o r
the U.S. Department o f Energy
under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830

P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99352

FOREWORD
Compressed a i r energy storage (CAES) i s a technique f o r supplying
e l e c t r i c power t o meet peak l o a d requirements o f e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y systems.
Using low- cost power from base l o a d p l a n t s d u r i n g off- peak periods, a CAES
p l a n t compresses a i r f o r storage i n an underground r e s e r v o i r - - a n a q u i f e r ,
s o l ution - mi ned s a l t cavi t y , o r mined hard rock cavern.

During subsequent

peak l o a d periods, t h e compressed a i r i s withdrawn from storage, heated, and


expanded through t u r b i n e s t o generate peak power.

This r e l a t i v e l y new

technology o f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t p o t e n t i a l f o r reducing costs and improving


e f f i c i e n c y of e l e c t r i c power generation, as w e l l as reducing petroleum f u e l
consumpti on.
Based on these p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s , t h e U.S.

Department o f Energy (DOE)

i s sponsoring a comprehensive program t o a c c e l e r a t e commercialization o f


CAES technology.

The P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory (PNL) was designated t h e

l e a d l a b o r a t o r y f o r t h e CAES Program.

As such, PNL i s responsible f o r

a s s i s t i n g t h e DOE i n planning, budgeting, c o n t r a c t i n g , managing, r e p o r t i n g ,


and disseminating i n f o r m a t i o n .

Under subcontract t o PNL are a number o f

companies, u n i v e r s i t i e s , and c o n s u l t a n t s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r various research


tasks w i t h i n t h e program.

A major component o f t h e CAES Program i s t h e Second-Generation Concept


Studies

These s t u d i e s a r e aimed toward developing advanced CAES concepts

t h a t consume l i t t l e o r no petroleum f u e l d u r i n g operation.

The primary goal

i s t o s u f f i c i e n t l y develop t h e technology o f one o r more concepts so a


u t i l i t y c o u l d begin a c t u a l p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e l a t e 1980s.

To date, conceptual design s t u d i e s have been completed by subcontractor


companies on f o u r advanced concepts.

Using t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , PNL then

assessed t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l readiness, economic b e n e f i t s , and o p e r a t i o n a l


v i a b i l i t y o f each concept.

This r e p o r t documents t h e PNL assessment and

recommends which o f t h e f o u r concepts should be developed t o t h e p o i n t o f


demonstrati on.

Major a c t i v i t i e s thus remaining before t h e program goal can be achieved


include:

..

develop equipment technology and systems t h a t would be r e q u i r e d f o r t h e


demonstration p l a n t ( s )
i n i t i a t e technology t r a n s f e r a c t i v i t i e s leading t o the design and
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the demonstrati on p l a n t ( s ) by an i n t e r e s t e d u t i li t y and
a r c h i t e c t - e n g i neering f i rm.

The P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory (PNL) conducted an assessment o f


t h e a d i a b a t i c compressed a i r energy storage (CAES) , h y b r i d CAES, CAES
w i t h coal g a s i f i c a t i o n , and CAES w i t h pressurized f l u i d i z e d bed combustion
concepts based on i n f o r m a t i o n provided i n conceptual design studies
performed by Acres American, Inc., United Engineers & Constructors, and
United Technologies Research Center.

The PNL assessment covered consideration

of the technological readiness, r e l a t i v e economic benefits, and operational


v i a b i l i t y o f each concept.
I t was concluded t h a t the a d i a b a t i c CAES concept appears t o be the

most a t t r a c t i v e candidate f o r u t i 1it y a p p l i c a t i o n i n the near f u t u r e .


It i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y viable, economically a t t r a c t i v e compared w i t h competing

concepts, and w i l l r e q u i r e r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a d d i t i o n a l development


before p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n can be undertaken.

I t was estimated t h a t a

u t i l i t y could s t a r t the design o f a demonstration p l a n t i n 2 t o 3 years


i f research regarding thermal energy storage system design i s undertaken

i n a t i m e l y manner.
The h y b r i d CAES concept should a l s o be considered as a candidate
f o r early application.
t o readiness;

I t i s s i m i l a r l y o p e r a t i o n a l l y v i a b l e and c l o s e

however, i t i s l e s s economically a t t r a c t i v e .

The h y b r i d

CAES concept has a more favorable charging r a t i o , which may increase i t s


a t t r a c t i v e n e s s i n comparison t o a d i a b a t i c CAES f o r some u t i l i t i e s .

................................
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 CANDIDATE CONCEPT DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 CONVENTIONAL COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE CONCEPT . . . . . .
3.2 ADVANCED COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE CONCEPTS. . . . . . . .
FOREWORD

3.2.1
3.2.2

4.0

5.0

v
xi
xii
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.1
3.2

Compressed A i r Energy Storage w i t h F l u i d i z e d


Bedcombustion

3.3

Compressed A i r Energy Storage w i t h Coal


Gasification

3.8

.....................

......................
3.2.3
A d i a b a t i c Compressed A i r Energy Storage . . . . . . . .
3.2.4 H y b r i d Compressed A i r Energy Storage Concept . . . . . .
ANALYSIS METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 UTILITY CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 ECONOMICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 OPERABILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5

iii

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

.....................

........................
NORMALIZATION PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.10
3.16
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.2
5.3

...........
BUSBARCOST ESTIMATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Technical Parameters and t h e Cost o f Operation . . . . .
5.3.2
Base-Case Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 High O i 1- P r i c e E s c a l a t i o n Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.4 Municipal Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL COST PARAMETERS

..............
5.4 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TECHNOLOGICAL STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.5

6.0

6.1

5.6
5.6
5.15
5.15
5.18
5.18
6.1
6.1

6.1.1

6.1

6.1.3
6.1.4

6.2.4
6.2.5

6.3

Compressed A i r Energy Storage/Pressuri zed


F l u i d i zed Bed Combusti on Concept

6.5

Compressed A i r Energy Storage/Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n


Concept

6.6

............

........................
REASSESSMENT OF EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1
Turbomachinery A v a i l a b i l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2
Commercial Readiness o f t h e Valve I n d u s t r y . . . . . . .
6.2.3

7.0

.......
A d i a b a t i c Compressed A i r Energy Storage Concept . . . .
H y b r i d Compressed A i r Energy Storage Concept . . . . . .

5.4

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY

6.1.2

6.2

S e n s i t i v i t y t o C a p i t a l Cost

5.4

6.7
6.8
6.9

Commercial Readiness o f t h e P i p i n g and Expansion


Joint Industries

6.9

Assessment o f Concrete Pressure Vessel f o r an


Advanced Compressed A i r Storage P l a n t

6.10

Technical Feasi b i 1 it y o f C y c l i c Coal Gasi f ic a t i o n


and CAES

6.11

....................
.........

........................
6.3 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCEPT RELATIONSHIPS TO UTILITY OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . .
7.1 PERFORMANCE FACTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

6.71
7.1
7.1

7.2

..........................
Compression Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power P r o d u c t i o n Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OPERABILITY

7.3

7.2.1

7.4

7.2.2

.........................

7.3

AVAILABILITY

7.4

PLANT LIFETIME

7.5

ENVIRONMENTAL

7.6

DISCUSSION

REFERENCES

........................
AND INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . .

..........................

7.5
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

FIGURES

...
.....

3.1

Conventional Compressed A i r Energy Storage Cycle Flow Diagram

3.2

Pressurized. F l u i d i z e d Bed Combustion P l a n t Flow Diagram

3.3

Compressed A i r Energy Storage/Coal G a s i f i e r Concept


Configuration

3.4

Compressed A i r Energy Storage/Continuous Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n


P l a n t Flow Diagram

3.5
3.6
3.7
5.1

...........................

........................
A d i a b a t i c CAES Cycle Flow Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acres Thermal Energy Storage Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H y b r i d CAES Cycle w i t h Thermal Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison o f CAES Technologies under Base-Case Conditions . . . .

5.2

Comparison o f Conventional and A d i a b a t i c CAES Against


A l t e r n a t i v e Peaking/Intermediate Load Technologies

5.3

Comparative Economic Performance o f CAES and UPHS under


Base-Case Conditions

5.4

Comparison o f Conventional and A d i a b a t i c CAES w i t h a Lead


A c i d Storage B a t t e r y System

5.5

Comparison o f CAES Technologies Assuming a Fuel O i 1 P r i c e


Escalation

5.6

Comparison o f CAES Technologies Economic Performance under


an A1t e r n a t i ve F i nanci a1 S t r u c t u r e

5.7

S e n s i t i v i t y o f Economic Performance t o V a r i a t i o n s i n
C a p i t a l Cost

........

.......................

....................

............................
................

...........................

TABLES
Key Operational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a CAES/FBC Power P l a n t

.....

3.7

I n t e g r a t e d CAES/Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n System Performance w i t h


C y c l i n g G a s i f i e r Operation

3.11

I n t e g r a t e d CAES/Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n System Performance w i t h


Continuous G a s i f i e r Operation

3.13

....................
...................

...........
H y b r i d CAES System Operating Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C a p i t a l Cost Summary f o r CAES Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compressed A i r Energy Storage System D e s c r i p t i o n s . . . . . . . . .
NonCAES System D e s c r i p t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Base-Case F i n a n c i a l and Cost Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A d i a b a t i c CAES System Performance Parameters

3.19
5.5
5.7
5.8
5.9

.....

7.2

.........

7.7

Performance Parameters f o r Second-Generation Technologies


Compressed A i r Energy Storage P l a n t A v a i l a b i l i t y

3.15

.AN ASSESSMENT OF SECOND-GENERATION COMPRESSED A I R


ENERGY STORAGE CONCEPTS
INTRODUCTION
The Compressed Ai r Energy Storage (CAES) Techno1ogy Program involves
technology development f o r u t i lit y peak power generation.

One program

a c t i v i t y , t h e Second-Generati on Concept Studies, i s speci f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d


toward developing CAES concepts t h a t r e q u i r e l i t t l e o r no petroleum fuels
f o r operation.

I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h i s a c t i v i t y w i l l lead t o u t i l i t y

i n t e r e s t i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a second-generation CAES p l a n t sometime


a f t e r 1985.
The progress t o date i n the Second-Generation Concept Studies has
included a p r e l i m i n a r y screening o f a number o f concepts.

This screening

r e s u l t e d i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f several concepts t h a t appeared


t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y and economically v i a b l e .

..
..

Concepts examined f u r t h e r i n

conceptual design and economic studies included:


CAES/f 1u i d i zed bed combusti on (FBC)
CAES/coal g a s i f i c a t i o n (CG)
a d i a b a t i c CAES (ACAES)
h y b r i d CAES.
The P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory (PNL) eval uated the economic and
t e c h n i c a l features o f these f o u r advanced CAES concepts.

Results o f t h i s

assessment, conducted under U.S. Department o f Energy (DOE) and E l e c t r i c


Power Research I n s t i t u t e (EPRI) sponsorship, were intended t o provide bases
f o r recommending which concepts should be considered f o r f u r t h e r development
and demonstration.
This r e p o r t analyzes, assesses, and compares the r e s u l t s o f e a r l i e r
conceptual design studies o f t h e f o u r advanced CAES concepts.

The

conclusions and recommendations reached by PNL are discussed i n


Section 2.0.

Section 3.0 presents d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the concepts being

assessed.

The method used i n t h i s assessment i s presented i n

S e c t i o n 4.0.

I n Section 5.0, t h e economic e v a l u a t i o n i s discussed;

Section 6.0 presents t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l s t a t u s o f t h e f o u r concepts.


F i n a l l y , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e concepts t o u t i 1i t y o p e r a t i o n a l
requirements i s considered i n Section 7.0.

2.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented here are based on


three p r i n c i p a l r e s u l t s o f t h i s assessment:

The h y b r i d CAES and a d i a b a t i c CAES concepts appear nearest t o


technological readiness of t h e second-generation CAES concepts
considered.

The o n l y niajor problem remaining before t h e design o f

a demonstration p l a n t can be undertaken i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and


c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f TES materials.

2 t o 3 years.

This could be accomplished i n

Other engineering development requirements i d e n t i f i e d

could be addressed during design and construction.

The CAESIPFBC

concept could p o s s i b l y be brought t o t h e p o i n t where design o f a


p l a n t could commence i n the l a t e 1980s.

However, the problems

i d e n t i f i e d a r e numerous and complex and would r e q u i r e the avai l a b i 1 it y


o f s i g n i f i c a n t R&D funds. The CAES/CG concept was judged n o t t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y

v i a b l e i n the foreseeable f u t u r e .
Both h y b r i d and a d i a b a t i c CAES designs appear t o have no s i g n i f i c a n t
operational problems t h a t would preclude u t i l i t y acceptance o f the
basic technology involved.

E i t h e r t h e h y b r i d o r a d i a b a t i c design

may be perceived by a u t i l i t y as a superior concept depending on i t s


forecasted f u e l a v a i l a b i l i t y .

The more favorable charging r a t i o o f

t h e h y b r i d concept may induce a u t i l i t y t o s e l e c t t h i s concept over


t h e a d i a b a t i c concept.

The CAESIPFBC design appears t o possess

a t t r a c t i v e performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and almost no dependence on


petroleum f u e l s .

However, i t s operational f l e x i b i l i t y , convenience,

and p l a n t a v a i l a b i l i t y appear t o be l e s s than those o f the h y b r i d


and ACAES designs. Also o f importance i s t h e r e l a t i v e u n f a m i l i a r i t y
o f U.S.

u t i l i t i e s w i t h PFBC technology.

This could provide complications

i n organizing u t i l i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a demonstration o f t h i s
concept.

The c y c l i n g coal g a s i f i e r technology does n o t appear

s u f f i c i e n t l y advanced t o consider the CAESICG concept operational l y


viable.

O f t h e second- generation concepts examined, a d i a b a t i c CAES appears

t o have t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r low- cost energy.

Under base

case c o n d i t i o n s , t h e l e v e l i z e d power c o s t s o f a d i a b a t i c CAES concepts


a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those o f t h e o t h e r second- generation
concepts except a t t h e v e r y h i g h c a p a c i t y f a c t o r s ( > 0.22) and h i g h
charging power c o s t s ( 2 5 m i l l s ) , a t which a l l power c o s t s tend t o
converge.

The l e v e l i z e d power c o s t s f o r t h e h y b r i d concept appear

t o g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w those o f t h e CAESIFBC and C A E S I C G except a t low


c a p a c i t y f a c t o r s and low power costs, where they improve somewhat.
Comparisons o f a d i a b a t i c CAES w i t h two non- storage p e a k i n g l i n t e r m e d i a t e
techno1 o g i es (combus ti on t u r b i n e and advanced combined c y c l e )
revealed t h a t ACAES enjoys a s i g n i f i c a n t power c o s t advantage when
low- cost ( 1 0-mi 11) charging power i s a v a i lab1e.

With h i g h - c o s t

charging power, a d i a b a t i c CAES l o s e s some o f i t s power c o s t advantage


t o t h e conventional CAES and combined concept p l a n t designs.
S i m i l a r comparisons w i t h UPH r e v e a l e d t h a t a 2000-MW UPH design had
power c o s t advantages over a d i a b a t i c CAES under a l l c o n d i t i o n s
examined.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y a good c o s t data base e x i s t s o n l y f o r

l a r g e (2000-MW) UPH p l a n t s .

P r e l i m i n a r y c a p i t a l c o s t estimates f o r

s m a l l e r (1000-MW) UPH p l a n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t c a p i t a l
c o s t increases ($/kW) a r e i n c u r r e d when p l a n t s i z e i s reduced from
,2000 MW t o 1000 MW.

However, no h i g h l y r e l i a b l e c a p i t a l c o s t estimates

a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r s m a l l e r UPH p l a n t s , making r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e optimal


t r a d e o f f p o i n t f o r CAES and UPH p l a n t s impossible.
2.1

CONCLUSIONS
The PNL assessment o f second- generation CAES technology l e d t o t h e

f o l l o w i n g conclusions:
1. The a d i a b a t i c CAES appears t o be t h e most a t t r a c t i v e second- generation
CAES system considered.

I t i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y v i a b l e , economically

a t t r a c t i v e , and c l o s e t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l readiness.

Design of a

demonstration p l a n t c o u l d proceed i n 2 t o 3 years if research


r e g a r d i n g TES system performance i s undertaken i n a t i m e l y manner.

2 . The h y b r i d CAES concept i s a l s o a candidate f o r e a r l y demonstration.


I t i s s i m i l a r l y o p e r a t i o n a l l y v i a b l e and c l o s e t o technological
readiness.

However, i t i s n o t as economically a t t r a c t i v e as ACAES.

I t has a more favorable charging r a t i o than ACAES, which may make

i t more a t t r a c t i v e t o some u t i l i t i e s .

3. The CAESIPFBC concept has numerous and complex developmental problems;


t h e i r s o l u t i o n would r e q u i r e a major developmental program. Such
development g e n e r a l l y 1i e s beyond the scope o f CAES studies.
Perhaps l a t e r , when PFBC technology beconies more advanced, t h i s
concept may become more a t t r a c t i v e .
4. The CAESICG concept w i t h c y c l i n g g a s i f i e r appears unsuitable f o r
demonstration i n t h e foreseeable future.

The CAESICCG concept i s

n o t as economically a t t r a c t i v e as a d i a b a t i c CAES nor i s i t as near


t o technological readiness as a d i a b a t i c CAES.

2.2

RECOMMENDATIONS
Three recommendations a r e o f f e r e d w i t h respect t o the second-

generation CAES technologies considered i n t h i s assessment.


1. Research should be undertaken t o i d e n t i f y s u i t a b l e TES m a t e r i a l s
and d e f i n e t h e i r performance i n CAES TES u n i t s .

This research w i l l

b e n e f i t both a d i a b a t i c and h y b r i d designs and w i l l b r i n g them both


e q u a l l y close t o a s t a t e o f technological readiness.

2 . Immediate consideration o f the CAESIPFBC and CAESICCG concepts as


candidates f o r developmental a c t i v i t i e s should be deferred. When
s i g n i f i c a n t advancement o f PFBC and coal g a s i f i c a t i o n technology
occurs as a r e s u l t o f o t h e r federal and p r i v a t e research and development
a c t i v i t i e s , renewed a t t e n t i o n should. be given t o t h i s concept.
3. Eliminate CAES/CG u t i l i z i n g a c y c l i n g g a s i f i e r from f u r t h e r consideration

as a v i a b l e second-generation concept.

CANDIDATE CONCEPT DESCRIPTIONS


Compressed a i r energy storage systems provide a short-term load
leveling capability to e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s by storing mechanical energy
in the form of compressed a i r during periods of low power demand and
then supplying t h i s energy to the u t i l i t y grid as electrical power
during peak periods. Excess base-load generation capacity avai lab1 e a t
n i g h t and on weekends i s used to drive a compressor that compresses a i r
for storage in underground reservoirs. During periods of peak demand,
a i r i s extracted from storage, heated, and expanded in the turbine.
In the conventional CAES cycle, the a i r i s heated by the combustion
of petroleum fuel before being expanded i n the turbine. The heat of
compression generated d u r i n g the charging cycle i s not used and i s
rejected to the environment. The conventional CAES concept has the
disadvantage of using petroleum fuel with the associated cost and fuel
availability problems. Second-generation CAES concepts were developed
to reduce t h i s disadvantage by minimizing or eliminating the use of
petroleum fuels.
In t h i s section, the conventional CAES concept will be briefly
described f o r reference. This will be followed by the description of
four basic candidate advanced cycles identified as particularly promi sing
i n prel iminary engineering and economic studies.
3.1 CONVENTIONAL COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE CONCEPT
Several conceptual design studies of conventional CAES plants have
been performed or are in progress under DOE or EPRI sponsorship. The
Potomac El e c t r i c Power Company (PEPCO) w i t h Acres American, Inc.
have completed a study of a CAES plant using a mined hard rock
cavern for compressed a i r storage. This plant would be located a t a
s i t e near Baltimore, Maryland. Middle South Services (MSS), together

w i t h United Engineers & Constructors (UE&C), a1so compl eted a conceptual


design study o f a conventional CAES p l a n t .

I n the MSS/UE&C study, a

cavern l o c a t e d i n a s a l t dome i n t h e G u l f coast area would be used f o r


compressed a i r storage.

The t h i r d study i s being performed by P u b l i c

Service o f Indiana (PSI) and i s s t i l l underway.

I n t h i s study, n a t u r a l l y

o c c u r r i n g porous, underground s t r u c t u r e s ( a q u i f e r s ) are being considered


f o r a i r storage.

A l l t h r e e o f these studies a r e based on CAES systems


t h a t use off- peak e l e c t r i c i t y f o r compression and consume petroleum
during t h e power generation mode.

A schematic f l o w diagram f o r a conventional CAES c y c l e i s shown i n


Figure 3.1.
During charging, g r i d power i s used t o d r i v e a compressor
t r a i n where a i r i s compressed t o a maximum o f 80 atm f o r storage i n t h e
compressed a i r r e s e r v o i r . The heat o f compression i s r e j e c t e d t o t h e
atmosphere i n t h e i n t e r c o o l e r s and a f t e r c o o l e r .

The compressed a i r

r e s e r v o i r can be e i t h e r a compensated o r uncompensated hard rock cavern,


s a l t cavern o r an a q u i f e r .

During discharge, t h e motor/generator i s

uncoupled from t h e compressor t r a i n and coupled t o t h e t u r b i n e t r a i n .


Compressed a i r i s e x t r a c t e d from t h e r e s e r v o i r , heated by t h e combustion
o f petroleum f u e l , and expanded i n t h e low-pressure and high- pressure
turbine.

The high- pressure t u r b i n e i s based on steam t u r b i n e technology

and has an i n l e t a i r temperature l i m i t o f about 1000F.

The low- pressure

t u r b i n e i s based on gas t u r b i n e technology and has an i n l e t a i r temperature


l i m i t o f around 1800F.

Exhaust gas from t h e discharge of t h e low-

pressure t u r b i n e i s used t o preheat a i r from the r e s e r v o i r before i t


enters t h e high- pressure turbine.
Based on t h e r e s u l t s o f the s t u d i e s c i t e d above, and on experience
gained i n operating t h e CAES p l a n t a t Huntorf by Nordwestdeutche Kraftwerke
AG, t h e r e i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t conventional CAES i s already a v i a b l e
peak power a l t e r n a t i v e f o r U.S. u t i l i t i e s .

3 . 2 ADVANCED COMPRESSED A I R ENERGY STORAGE CONCEPTS


Advanced CAES concepts a r e broadly defined as CAES systems t h a t
use reduced o r no petroleum f u e l s f o r operation.
concepts discussed i n t h i s r e p o r t are:

The advanced CAES

lNTERCOOLER

FUEL

I
I

RESERVOIR

FIGURE 3.1.

..

3.2.1

Conventional Compressed A i r Energy Storage Cycle Flow Diagram

CAES w i t h f l u i d i z e d bed coal combustion (CAES/FBC)


CAES i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a coal g a s i f i c a t i o n p l a n t (CAES/CG)
a d i a b a t i c CAES (ACAES)
h y b r i d conventional/adiabatic CAES ( h y b r i d CAES)

Compressed A i r Energy Storage w i t h F l u i d i z e d Bed Combustion


The CAES/FBC concept reduces t h e dependence on petroleum f u e l s by

s u b s t i t u t i n g coal as t h e p r i n c i p a l f u e l .

A1 though some petroleum f u e l

i s r e q u i r e d f o r i g n i t i o n , the amount necessary i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n


comparison t o t h e f u e l consumed i n a conventional CAES plant. The
f l u i d i z e d bed combustor was one o f several methods i n i t i a l l y examined t o
burn coal i n a CAES p l a n t .

I t was i d e n t i f i e d f o r f u r t h e r study because

t h e FBC approach may be l e s s expensive and have a smaller environmental


impact than o t h e r coal- burning technologies.
F l u i d i z e d bed combustion can be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a CAES c y c l e i n a
number o f ways.

To i d e n t i f y t h e most a t t r a c t i v e cycle, PNL funded a

study by United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) i n which these c y c l e

concepts were screened from the standpoint of technological and economic


viability (Giramonti e t a l . 1980). Following this screening study, UTRC
conducted a preconceptual design of a CAES plant based on the most
a t t r a c t i v e cycle arrangement identified i n the screening study.
The optimal CAES/FBC cycle identified by UTRC used an open pressurized,
fluidized bed combustor integrated into a conventional CAES cycle. The
UTRC conceptual design i s diagrammed schematical ly in Figure 3.2.
The operating sequence of the CAES/PFBC plant design requires that
the turbine section and compressor section be a1 ternately connected and
disconnected from the motor/generator. During the a i r storage mode of
operation, the compressor section i s clutched into the motor/generator,
which acts as a motor, and the turbine section i s declutched. Ambient
a i r i s drawn into the low-pressure compressor. The a i r i s compressed to
an intermediate pressure level and then directed to an intercooler. I t
then proceeds to a high-pressure compressor for further compression.
The intercooler location i s selected to minimize compression i n p u t power
requirement for compressing a i r from ambient pressure to the 1046psia storage pressure.
Additional intercooling occurs before the a i r enters the booster
compressor. In the booster compressor, the a i r i s compressed s t i l l
further, intercooled again, and then compressed to a pressure level
compatible w i t h the a i r storage f a c i l i t y . The booster compressor
intercooler i s located so as to keep the temperature of the compressed
a i r from exceeding the temperature limits of existing commercial compressor
units.
Before i t i s stored, the a i r i s cooled again in an aftercooler
containing a moisture separator. The level of cooling i n the aftercooler
i s dictated by a i r storage reservoir requirements.
During the generating mode of operation, the compressor i s disconnected
from the motor/generator and the turbine section i s connected. Air
i s directed from storage, incurring a s l i g h t loss i n pressure as i t
rises to the surface. I t then travels to the recuperator where i t i s

heated to 500F. The heated a i r i s then expanded in an expansion turbine


from approximately a i r storage pressure down to a level compatible with
that of the low-pressure turbine.
After leaving the expansion turbine, a side stream of a i r i s removed
from the main stream to provide turbine blade cooling in the low-pressure
turbine. Additional side streams of a i r are also removed prior to the
fluid bed combustion to serve as transport a i r for the coal and dolomite
fuel system and transport a i r for the coal ash and spent dolomite handling
system. The main flow of a i r goes to the fluid bed combustor system
where i t i s used as combustion a i r in the fluidized bed. The transport
a i r i s reunited with the main stream when the coal ash and spent dolomite
transport a i r i s returned to the main stream flow just prior to the fluid
bed combustor, and when the coal/dolomite mixture i s fed into the fluid
bed combustor. The hot exhaust gases a t 1562F from the fluid bed are
cleansed and are expanded in the low-pressure turbine. During the
expansion process, the cooling a i r , which had been extracted a f t e r the
expansion turbine, i s reintroduced to the main stream to provide blade,
rotor disc, and bearing cooling.
The gas stream then travels to the recuperator. Enroute, however,
another side stream of a i r i s removed to provide drying for the coal and
dolomite feed. The remaining stream proceeds to the recuperator to
release a portion of i t s thermal energy to the storage a i r traveling t o
the expansion turbine. The relatively cool gases are then directed to
the stack.
The UTRC conceptual design was based on the s i t e used in the PEPCOI
Acres American conventional CAES study to take advantage of the extensive
geologic information available about t h i s s i t e and t o enhance subsequent
technical and economic comparisons. The key operation parameters of the
UTRC CAES/PFBC design are given in Table 3.1. A detailed description of
the design i s provided by Giramonti e t a l . (1980).

TABLE 3.1.

Key Operational Characteristics of a CAES/FBC Power Plant

Turbine output, four units


Compressor input, four units
Heat r a t e
Generation
Compression
Round trip
Storage pressure
PFBC bed temperature
PFBC bed pressure
ET i n l e t temperature
LT i n l e t temperature

Annual u t i l i z a t i o n
Capaci ty f a c t o r

71.2 atm
1 562.0F

15.0 atm

3.2.2

Compressed A i r Energy Storage w i t h Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n


The CAES coal g a s i f i c a t i o n concept i s another method f o r s u b s t i t u t i n g

coal f o r o i l i n a conventional CAES cycle.

I n t h i s concept, a CAES

c y c l e i s i n t e g r a t e d w i t h a coal g a s i f i c a t i o n p l a n t t o o b t a i n s y n e r g i s t i c
b e n e f i t s from t h e various i n t e r n a l a i r and energy flows.

For example,

i n a CAES/CG p l a n t , the g a s i f i e r could provide fuel f o r t h e CAES cycle,


and t h e CAES c y c l e could, i n turn, provide compressed a i r f o r the g a s i f i e r .
Under EPRI sponsorship, United Technologies Research Center s t u d i e d
t h i s concept (Giramonti and Sadala 1979) t o examine t h e t e c h n i c a l and
economic inipl i c a t i o n s o f i n t e g r a t i n g CAES and coal g a s i f i c a t i o n technologies.
This study d i d n o t i n c l u d e the conceptual design o f a CAESICG p l a n t , b u t
i n v o l v e d o n l y a screening t o i d e n t i f y t h e most t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y and
economically promising concepts.
A f t e r p r e l iminary screening, the UTRC study focussed on f o u r g a s i f i c a t i o n

..

processes and two cleanup systems.

The coal g a s i f i c a t i o n systems included:

U-Gas
Texaco
Foster WheelerIBCR
Kel logg.

Both d a i l y c y c l i n g o f t h e g a s i f i e r w i t h power production and continuous


operation were investigated.

I t was found t h a t no one g a s i f i e r type

appeared t o o f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t advantage over the others considered.


The CAES p l a n t s using continuous g a s i f i e r s were found t o be uneconomical.
Cycling plants, on t h e o t h e r hand, were found t o be p o s s i b l y competitive
w i t h conventional power peaking technologies.

A very s i m p l i f i e d f l o w diagram o f one c y c l i n g CAESICG concept


considered by UTRC i s shown i n Figure 3.3.

This concept uses a Foster

WheelerIBCR c y c l i n g g a s i f i e r w i t h a Conoco clamp system.

The c y c l e i s

very complicated and i n v o l v e s many components, which have been grouped


o r omitted i n F i g u r e 3.3 f o r c l a r i t y .

I n b r i e f , the compressed a i r from

storage a t about 1000 p s i a provides a i r f o r both t h e g a s i f i e r and the


compressor t r a i n s .

The g a s i f i e r produces f u e l f o r t h e otherwise

FIGURE 3.3.

Compressed Air Energy Storage/Coal Gasifier Concept


Conf i guration

conventional CAES t u r b i n e system.

The performance parameters f o r t h i s

system a r e provided i n Table 3.2.


One o f the p r i n c i p a l problems associated w i t h the c y c l i n g CAES/CG
concept i s the poor re1i a b i l i t y o f g a s i f i e r s during d a i l y on- off operation.
One method considered by Giramonti and Sadala (1979) t o reduce t h i s
problem was t o design t h e p l a n t f o r continuous g a s i f i e r operation (CAES/CCG)
I n the CAES/CCG p l a n t design, fuel gas produced d u r i n g off-peak periods
i s used t o generate compressed a i r .

Figure 3.4 shows t h e f l o w diagram

f o r one type o f CAES/CCG p l a n t ; i t s associated performance parameters


a r e given i n Table 3.3.

This p l a n t operates e s s e n t i a l l y as a conventional

gas t u r b i n e p l a n t during off- peak hours w i t h t h e g a s i f i e r p r o v i d i n g t h e


s o l e energy source.
a i r f o r storage.

The output from t h e gas t u r b i n e i s used t o conipress

During peak periods t h e a i r froin storage i s heated by

the combustion o f f u e l gas o r waste process heat before expansion i n the


turbines.

I t i s apparent t h a t t h e off- peak a i r f l o w t o storage i s l e s s

than t h a t provided by a c y c l i n g g a s i f i e r because some o f t h e off- peak


compression power i s consumed i n running the power cycle.

Therefore,

the charging time f o r a CAES/CCG i s greater than f o r an equivalent


c y c l i n g CAES/CG p l a n t .

I t should a l s o be noted t h a t CAES/CCG p l a n t s do

n o t use g r i d power f o r a i r compression.

Therefore, they provide no

c a p a b i l i t y f o r u t i l i t y system load l e v e l i n g .
Adiabatic Compressed A i r Energy Storage

3.2.3

I n t h e a d i a b a t i c CAES c y c l e no f u e l i s consumed.

The heat o f
compression i s stored during the charging c y c l e instead o f being discarded
as i s done i n a conventional CAES p l a n t .

This stored heat i s used

during the discharge c y c l e t o heat the compressed a i r withdrawn from


storage before i t i s expanded i n t h e t u r b i n e .

The a d i a b a t i c CAES concept

can be used w i t h any type o f storage reservoir- - hard rock caverns, s a l t


domes, o r a q u i f e r s .
Acres American, Inc., performed a conceptual design study and
economic a n a l y s i s o f a d i a b a t i c CAES under DOE sponsorship (Hobson e t a l .
1981).

This study considered underground thermal storage and a water-

TABLE 3.2.

Integrated CAES/Coal Gasification System Performance


with Cycling Gasifier Operation

Gasifier system

Foster Wheel er/BCR

Cleanup system

Conoco

Power cycle

Gas turbine

Power, MW
LP turbine
HP turbine
Fuel gas expander
Cool ing ai r expander
Gross output
Auxi 1iaries
Boost compressor
Net output
Heat rate, Btu/kWh
Generation
Compression (a)
Round trip
Compression/generation
Time ratio

(a)~nergy from utility grid at 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate, compressor


power equals 212 MW.

TABLE 3.3.

I n t e g r a t e d CAESICoal G a s i f i c a t i o n System Performance w i t h


w i t h Continuous G a s i f i e r Operation

Gasi f ie r system

Foster Wheel er/BCR

Cleanup system

Sel ex01

Power c y c l e

Reheat GT-comb; ned

Steam generator

Waste heat

Steam cycle, psig/F/F

2400/1000/1000

Power, MW
LP t u r b i n e
HP t u r b i n e
Fuel gas expander(s)
Cool ing a iia expander
Steam t u r b i n e
Gross o u t p u t
Auxiliaries
Boost compressor
Net o u t p u t
Heat r a t e , BtuIkWh
Genera t i on
Compression (a

>

Round t r i p
Compression/generation
Time r a t i o (b)
(a 'week1 y compression c y c l e w i t h compress; on d u r i n g a1 1 weeknight and
weekend periods when power n o t being generated.
( b ) ~ o r24-hour weekday period.

compensated hard rock cavern for high-pressure a i r storage. I t was


based on the e a r l i e r DOE/EPRI/PEPCO study of a 920-MW conventional CAES
plant design prepared by Acres for a s i t e in Maryland. A flow diagram
of the adiabatic CAES cycle finally selected by Acres i s shown in Figure 3.5.
During charging, grid power i s used to drive the compressor t r a i n ,
which compresses a i r to 1215 psi for storage i n the mined hard rock
cavern a i r storage reservoir. When the a i r emerges from the low-pressure
compressor, i t s temperature and pressure are 870F and 225 psi. Instead
of cooling the a i r in intercoolers as in a conventional CAES cycle, the
a i r flows through a thermal energy storage (TES) unit where the heat of
compression i s stored. The cooled a i r i s then further compressed i n the
high-pressure compressor to 850F and 121 5 psi. The additional heat of
compression i s stored in a second high-pressure TES unit. The compressed
a i r i s then stored below 125F in the storage reservoir. The Acres
study considered a i r storage in mined hard rock caverns. However,
solution-mined s a l t caverns or aquifers could also be used.
During discharge, the motor/generator i s uncoupled from the compressors
and coupled to the turbine train. Air from the reservoir i s heated to
830F in the high-pressure TES and expanded in the high-pressure turbine

FIGURE 3.5.

Adiabatic CAES Cycle Flow Diagram

t o 240 psi and 440F. I t i s reheated t o 865F i n the low-pressure TES


and f u r t h e r expanded i n the low-pressure turbine. Because the turbine
i n l e t a i r temperatures a r e much lower in adiabatic CAES than i n a conventional
cycle, the adiabatic cycle suffers poor performance parameters accordingly.
The performance parameters f o r the Acres design adiabatic CAES system
a r e given i n Table 3.4.
The thermal energy storage u n i t i s one of the most important items
of an adiabatic CAES system. These units a r e e s s e n t i a l l y regenerative
a i r heaters. However, performance, lifetime, and cost r e s t r a i n t s imposed
by the CAES application preclude use of conventional materials and
technology i n t h e i r design and construction. Acres examined a wide
TABLE 3.4.

Adiabatic CAES System Performance Parameters

U n i t output (four u n i t s )
Charging r a t i o
Compressor design flow r a t e
Expander design flow r a t e
Compression period
Genera tion period
Storage pressure
Storage temperature
Overall heat r a t e
Plant efficiency

Thermal energy storage


Pressure
Mass flow r a t e
Temperature hot a i r i n
Temperature cool a i r in
Effectiveness
Pressure 1oss

205 MW
1.48
650 Iblsec
750 lblsec
72 hr
10 hr
121 5 psi
125F
14,800 BtuIkWh
0.23
TES I
226 psia
2600 1 blsec
870
460
0.966
5 psi

TES I1
1215 psia
2600 1 b/sec
830
1 00
0.966
4 psi

range of TES types and materials to find a preferred design. This final
design consists of sensible heat storage beds composed of sintered iron
oxide pebbles. These beds are contained in a mined hard rock cavern for
pressure containment. Bypass a i r from storage keeps the cavern walls
cool. I t i s expected that the TES beds will slowly comminute due to the
effects of thermal cycling. Therefore, particulate separators are
provided to remove the detritus from the a i r to protect the turbines
from erosion damage. Figure 3.6 shows a cross section of the Acres TES
design.
3.2.4

Hybrid Compressed Air Energy Storage Concept

The hybrid CAES cycle includes features of both the conventional


petroleum fuel- fired CAES cycle and the adiabatic CAES cycle. The
addition of thermal energy storage to conventional CAES can reduce
petroleum fuel use without the performance penalties associated with
the adiabatic cycle.
United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., and Brown Boveri Corporation
performed an engineering and economic study (Karalis e t a l . 1981) of a
CAVERN
/ WALL

CONVECTIVE
COOL1NG
S PACE

TES STEEL
CYLINDRICAL
TANK BED

yi

I:.:

+:.
&.

O ~ ~ E T

FIGURE 3.6.

CONCRETE

s u PPORTS

Acres Thermal Energy Storage Design

h y b r i d CAES c y c l e under E P R I sponsorship.

I n t h i s cycle, a i r i s stored

i n solution- mined s a l t caverns w i t h s i t e conditions p r e v a i l i n g a t t h e


Carmichael S a l t Dome southwest o f Jackson, M i s s i s s i p p i .
Figure 3.7 shows t h e general f l o w diagram f o r t h i s h y b r i d c y c l e and
includes both t h e heat and mass balance.

During charging, g r i d power i s

used t o compress a i r i n t h e low and intermediate compressors w i t h o u t


i n t e r c o o l i n g t o 240 p s i and 900F.

The heat of compression i s removed

i n a thermal energy storage u n i t .

The cooled a i r i s f u r t h e r compressed

i n a high- pressure compressor w i t h i n t e r c o o l e r s and a f t e r c o o l ers.


a t 1100 p s i and 140F i s stored i n the s a l t cavern.

Air

During discharge,

t h e compressed a i r i s removed from the r e s e r v o i r , heated i n the recuperator,


and expanded i n t h e high- pressure turbine.

This a i r i s then reheated t o

860F a t 200 p s i by passing i t through t h e TES u n i t .

This a i r i s f u r t h e r

heated by t h e f i r i n g o f petroleum f u e l t o 1634OF, then expanded i n the


low-pressure turbine; remaining heat i s removed i n t h e recuperator. The
performance parameters f o r the h y b r i d CAES design a r e l i s t e d i n Table 3.5.
The thermal energy storage u n i t designed by UE&C was a sensible
heat storage device s i m i l a r t o t h e u n i t designed f o r t h e a d i a b a t i c CAES
study by Acres.

However, t h i s u n i t d i f f e r e d i n two important ways.

F i r s t , UE&C used an above-ground post- tensioned concrete pressure vessel


t o contain t h e TES.

Because t h e pressures a t t a i n e d i n the TES are

r e l a t i v e l y low, a s i n g l e containment vessel i s n o t o u t s i d e t h e c a p a b i l i t y


o f e x i s t i n g technology.

Second, UE&C chose t o use 112 i n . diameter

b a l l s o f Denstone@ Product #57 as t h e TES m a t e r i a l .

I r o n oxide such as

used by Acres i n t h e a d i a b a t i c CAES study was a l s o considered as a


primary candidate.

However, i t was n o t used i n t h e f i n a l design because

o f i n s u f f i c i e n t a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n regarding i t s properties.
@Denstone 57 i s an alumina- sil i c a product o f the Norton Company.

HP COMPRESSOR

(UPPER FINAL PRESSURE)

CAVERN

FIGURE 3 . 7 .

Hybrid CAES Cycle w i t h Thermal Energy Storage

TABLE 3.5.

H y b r i d CAES System Operating Parameters

U n i t output

220 MWe

Compression hours

8.61 hr/day

Genera ti on hours

8 hr/day

Charging r a t i o

1 .038

O v e r a l l p l a n t heat r a t e
Fuel consumption
Overall plant efficiency

13,560 Btu/ kwh


2660 Btu/kWh
25.2%

Compressor design f 1ow r a t e

661 1 b l s e c

Expander design f l o w r a t e

712 l b / s e c

Storage
Pressure
Temperature

1204 p s i a

789 p s i a

140F

Thermal Energy Storage U n i t


A i r flow rate

3
0.667 ft /sec

Temperature h o t a i r i n

91 6F

Temperature h o t a i r o u t

860F

Maximum i n 1e t p x s s u r e

241 p s i a

4.0

ANALYSIS METHOD

The o b j e c t i v e o f the CAES Program's Second-Generation Concept


Studies i s t o develop CAES concepts t h a t consume l i t t l e o r no petroleum.
The p r i n c i p a l program goal i s t o s u f f i c i e n t l y develop one o r more concepts
t o a l l o w a u t i l i t y t o s t a r t c o n s t r u c t i n g a p l a n t i n about 1985.
Progress t o date has included the conceptual design and economic
analysis o f t h e f o u r concepts described i n Section 3.0.

Activities

remaining before t h e program goal can be a t t a i n e d include:

develop equipment items and systems t h a t would be required f o r the


demonstration p l a n t ( s )
i n i t i a t e p r e l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s leading t o t h e design and c o n s t r u c t i o n
o f t h e demonstration p l a n t ( s ) i n cooperation w i t h an i n t e r e s t e d u t i l i t y
and a r c h i tect- engineering f i r m .
I n t h i s section, f a c t o r s considered i n evaluating the technological

and economic v i a b i l i t y o f t h e candidate concepts w i l l be considered.


The r e s u l t s o f these evaluations w i l l be used t o formulate recommendations
regarding which concepts should be given f u r t h e r developmental a t t e n t i o n .
4.1

UTILITY CONSIDERATIONS
The c a p i t a l - i n t e n s i v e and h i g h l y regulated nature o f e l e c t r i c a l

u t i l i t i e s g e n e r a l l y cause them t o take a conservative approach t o adopting


new technology w i t h h i g h o r undefined r i s k s .

One o b j e c t i v e o f t h e

Second-Generation Concepts Studies i s t o minimize t h e r i s k s perceived by


t h e u t i l i t i e s by analyzing t h e t e c h n i c a l and economic v i a b i l i t y o f the
various second-generation options and by developing equipment, c o n s t r u c t i o n
materials, and p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n methods. I t i s assumed t h a t once
c r i t i c a l components a r e successfully developed, u t i l i t i e s w i 11 accept
those concepts as economical l y and technical l y s u i tab1 e a1t e r n a t i ves t o
o t h e r power peaking technologies, and the p r i v a t e sector w i l l assume
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f u r t h e r development.

Once a u t i l i t y recognizes t h e need f o r storage capacity, several


f a c t o r s must be considered i n s e l e c t i n g a most s a t i s f a c t o r y storage
method:
1. The method selected should be capable o f power costs competitive
w i t h o t h e r storage o r peaking technologies.

2. The method selected should be b a s i c a l l y compatible w i t h the s i t e ,


from technical, i n s t i t u t i o n a l , and r e g u l a t o r y standpoints.

.
..

3. The method should be t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y ready; i.e.,

4.

t h e design and c o n s t r u c t i o n of a p l a n t uses o n l y a v a i l a b l e and


f a m i l i a r methods
codes and standards a r e a v a i l a b l e on which design can be based
equipment r e q u i r e d i s avai lab1e w i t h standard comniercial
guarantees.

The method should have operating c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

..
..

a short- term l o a d l e v e l i n g f a c i l i t y .

5..

These include:

acceptable charge-di scharge c y c l e


s a t i s f a c t o r y startup, load- following, and shutdown c a p a b i l i t y
acceptable p l a n t a v a i l a b i l i t y
p l a n t l i f e t i m e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r power a p p l i c a t i o n s .

Any f u e l s r e q u i r e d by t h e storage technology should n o t be susceptible


t o prolonged i n t e r r u p t i o n due t o domestic o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s .
O f c u r r e n t concern i s the p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e s c a r c i t y o f petroleum

f u e l s stemming from t h e u n s e t t l e d c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e Middle East.


A concept s a t i s f y i n g a l l of these considerations would obviously be
viewed as a primary candidate by a u t i l i t y . Therefore, t h i s l i s t i n g

o f considerations was used as a basis f o r e v a l u a t i n g t h e candidate


second-generation concepts and f o r f o r m u l a t i n g recommendations on developmental
p r i o r i t y f o r t h e CAES Technology Program. P r i n c i p a l emphasis was placed
on Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 ( i .e.,

economics, technological status, o p e r a b i l i t y ,

and mi nimi z i n g p e t r o l eum f u e l dependence) because they a r e re1ated


s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e concept and n o t dependent on l o c a l s i t e f a c t o r s .

4.2

ECONOMICS
The economic analyses associated w i t h K a r a l i s e t a l . (1981), Hobson

e t a1

(1981), Giramonti e t a1

(1980), and Giramonti and Sadala (1979)

were used t o evaluate t h e economic m e r i t o f each concept and formulate


comparisions w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e technology.

Due t o s i t e and u t i l i t y -

r e l a t e d f a c t o r s , t h e major system parameters used i n these references


differ.

Therefore, d i r e c t comparisons were n o t possible.

To f a c i l i t a t e

comparison, these studies were reanalyzed t o p u t t h e parameters on the


same engineering and economic bases.

D e t a i l s o f the procedure used are

presented i n Section 5.0.


C a p i t a l and operating costs were estimated i n 1980 d o l l a r s assuming
s t a r t o f operation i n August 1985 and using methods described i n the
EPRI Technical Assessment Guide (1979).

The costs o f each concept

considered were combined i n t o a c o s t f o r d e l i v e r e d power, $/kwh, which


was t h e p r i n c i p a l i t e m f o r economic comparison i n t h e evaluation process.

4.3

TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS

A1 though t h e conceptual design studies (Karal is e t a1 1981; Hobson


e t a l . 1981; Giramonti e t a l . 1980;, Giramonti and Sadala 1979) were
undertaken w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f u t i l i z i n g o n l y c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e equipment,
c o n s t r u c t i o n methods, and materials, i t was found t h a t a l l concepts
r e q u i r e d some developmental work.

Because t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f such equipment,

methods, and m a t e r i a l s i s a key f a c t o r i n the evaluation o f these concepts


and the s e l e c t i o n process, an independent reassessment and overview o f
r e q u i r e d developmental work was funded w i t h ENTEC Research Associates.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e f o l l o w i n g considerations were addressed:

determination o f c u r r e n t unknowns o r unsolved problems standing i n


t h e way o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a second-generation CAES p l a n t
d e f i n i t i o n of R&D r e q u i r e d t o solve these problems
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f ongoing o r planned u t i l i t y , DOE, o r o t h e r federal
agency programs t h a t may p r o v i d e answers t o these problems

determination of R&D a c t i v i t y t h a t must be undertaken under t h e


CAES Program.

This work i s c u r r e n t l y i n progress.

The r e s u l t s and conclusions obtained

t o date a r e summarized i n Section 6.0.

4.4

OPERABILITY
The f a c t o r s considered i n d e f i n i n g t h e o p e r a b i l i t y o f a CAES p l a n t

design included:
i t s a d a p t a b i l i t y t o t h e charge- discharge c y c l e d e f i n e d by i t s
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as an i n t e r m e d i a t e o r peak power f a c i 1i t y

s t a r t u p and shutdown c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
p l a n t l o a d - f o l lowing c a p a b i l i t y
p l a n t a v a i l a b i l i t y comparable t o competing technologies
p l a n t l i f e t i m e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h expectations f o r power generating
equipment.
These f a c t o r s were examined as p a r t o f each conceptual design study

( K a r a l i s e t a l . 1981; Hobson e t a l . 1981; Giramonti e t a l . 1980; Giramonti


and Sadala 1979).

Section 7.0 w i l l summarize t h e r e s u l t s o f these

s t u d i e s and form comparisons among t h e concepts.


4.5

EVALUATION PROCEDURE
The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s a n a l y s i s was n o t t o s e l e c t t h e best second-

generation CAES concept, b u t r a t h e r t o i d e n t i f y and rank t h e concepts,


p o t e n t i a l l y most a t t r a c t i v e t o e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t i e s , t h a t can be brought
s u c c e s s f u l l y and e x p e d i t i o u s l y t o t h e p o i n t o f demonstration w i t h i n
c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by program schedule and funding c o n s t r a i n t s .

The

basic assumption i s made t h a t once s i g n i f i c a n t t e c h n i c a l and economic


issues a r e r e s o l v e d w i t h confidence, t h e p r i v a t e sector w i l l take over
f u r t h e r development.

T h i s p o i n t i s d e f i n e d here as "technology readiness" .

The procedure used in this analysis was to evaluate and compare


the economics, technological readiness, and operating characteristics of
the four candidate concepts. These evaluations and their results are
described in Sections 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0, respectively. The results of
the most economical, operationally
these analyses were combined to identify -that could be brought to-a stage of
- technological
viable concept(s) --the constraints of
---time and funds. The degree of
readiness within petroleum fuel dependence entered into consideration by providing a
method of discriminating among concepts that were otherwise economically,
technologically, and operationally equivalent.

5.0

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o make unambiguous c a p i t a l and


power c o s t comparisons among t h e f o u r second-generation CAES concepts
under review ( a d i a b a t i c CAES, h y b r i d CAES, CAESIPFBC, and CAESICG) and t o
compare these costs w i t h t h e c a p i t a l costs o f competing technologies

..
.

such as

..

conventional ( o i 1- f i r e d ) CAES
o i 1 - f i r e d combustion t u r b i n e s
underground pumped hydro storage (UPHS)
advanced combined c y c l e
storage b a t t e r i e s .

The design studies o f t h e second-generation CAES concepts were performed


using s i t e , u t i l i t y , and economic assumptions t h a t were not, i n a l l
cases, consistent.

Therefore, d i r e c t comparisons o f t h e economic r e s u l t s

o f these studies would n o t necessarily r e s u l t i n v a l i d conclusions


regarding comparative economic advantages.

To avoid t h i s problem, a

methodology was developed t o normalize each design t o a comnon s e t o f


c o s t and design assumptions, and then use these normalized assumptions t o
assess comparative economic advantages o f each concept.

5.1

NORMALIZATION PROCEDURE
The major features o f t h e normalization procedure a r e described i n

t h e f o l 1owing paragraphs.
A l l c o s t estimates were converted t o midyear 1979 p r i c e l e v e l s ,

using t h e M&S Equipment Cost Index from Chemical Engineering.

Conventional

CAES, h y b r i d CAES, CAES/FBC and UPHS were already a t t h i s p r i c e l e v e l .


Adiabatic CAES ($ 1980.5), CAES/CG ( $ 1976), and t h e combustion t u r b i n e
(E-0-Y 1978) had t o be normal ized.

A l l l a b o r and supply costs were normalized t o a s i t e on the northeast


coast o f t h e U.S.,
Means Co.

using i n f o r m a t i o n obtained d i r e c t l y from the R.S.

A1 1 costs were already a t t h i s l a b o r c o s t base except f o r those

i n t h e study performed by UE&Cy which employed Jackson, M i s s i s s i p p i , as


t h e assumed l a b o r market.

A l l turbomachinery costs i n t h e design studies represent one-of-ak i n d b i d estimates, except f o r t h e CAES/FBC study, whose c o s t estimate
was based upon a production r u n o f 50.

United Technologies Research

Center was contacted and provided a c o s t estimate based upon an e q u i v a l e n t


bid situation.

T h i s adjustment added $60 m i l l i o n t o the p l a n t c o s t

estimate contained i n t h e o r i g i n a l document.

The turbomachinery c o s t

estimate now appears t o be commensurate w i t h t h e o t h e r c o s t estimates.

A l l p l a n t designs were normalized t o accommodate northeastern


weather p a t t e r n s .

The UE&C M i s s i s s i p p i p l a n t design was based upon out-

of- doors turbomachinery, because o f t h e m i l d climate.

This design was

adjusted t o i n c l u d e costs f o r turbomachinery b u i l d i n g s , based upon the


costs found i n t h e PEPCO conventional CAES design.
Switchyard designs were normalized t o "breaker-and-a-half'' designs
based upon costs supplied by t h e B o n n e v i l l e Power Administration.

The

number o f transmission l i n e s s e r v i c i n g t h e p l a n t s was adjusted according


t o p l a n t size.

One l i n e was assumed i n t e r c e p t e d f o r the 220-MWe h y b r i d

and conventional p l a n t s , two l i n e s f o r t h e 800- t o 1000-MWe CAES


p l a n t s , and t h r e e l i n e s f o r t h e 2000-MWe UPHS p l a n t .

(Each transmission

l i n e i n t e r c e p t e d a c t u a l l y provides two routes f o r d e l i v e r i n g o r dispatching


power.) A l l transmission l i n e r e r o u t i n g o r c o n s t r u c t i o n costs were
e l i m i n a t e d from t h e c o s t estimates.
A1 1 c o o l i n g c o s t estimates were normalized (on a $/kWt-rejected
basis) t o wet c o o l i n g using mechanical d r a f t wet c o o l i n g towers.
A l l nonrequired items unique t o a p a r t i c u l a r design study were

e l i m i n a t e d from t h e c o s t estimates.

Examples o f these items a r e v i s i t o r

centers, l a r g e guard houses, excessive l a n d purchases, excessive allowances


f o r grading and l e v e l i n g , and spare equipment ( i .e.,

the mu1t i m i l l i o n

d o l l a r spare r o t o r assembly supplied as p a r t o f the a d i a b a t i c CAES c o s t


estimate).

The h y b r i d cost estimate was adjusted t o i n c l u d e two TES f i l t e r


systems and a TES bypass, because these items were h i g h l y recommended by
UE&C.

Costs were provided.in t h e source document, but were n o t included


as p a r t o f t h e basic design.
A f t e r the d i r e c t - c o s t estimates were made, i n d i r e c t costs were
applied t o a l l o f t h e estimates on a consistent basis.

F i f t e e n percent

o f d i r e c t cost was allowed f o r the architect/engineer and construction


management fee.

Contingency was applied on a v a r i a b l e basis t o r e f l e c t

t h e r e l a t i v e uncertainties:

15% of d i r e c t c o s t was a1lowed f o r turbomachinery,

cavern construction, thermal energy storage, f l u i d - b e d combustors,


and coal g a s i f i c a t i o n u n i t s ; 5% was allowed f o r t h e remainder o f the
c a p i t a l c o s t estimate, i n c l u d i n g land, swi tchyard, and balance-ofp l a n t items.
There was one exception t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i n d i r e c t costs.

The

solution- mining cost estimates f o r t h e conventional and h y b r i d p l a n t s


l o c a t e d i n M i s s i s s i p p i already i n c l u d e contingency, so no f u r t h e r contingency
was applied.

Contingency was applied t o the compressed a i r p i p i n g

systems, however.
I n t e r e s t during construction (IDC) and escalation during construction
(EDC) were n o t included as p a r t o f the t o t a l c a p i t a l cost.

These itenis

were included i n t h e estimation o f busbar cost, however, by applying a


methodology developed by Phung (1978). The assumption was made t h a t t h e
cost-payout curve i s S-shaped, skewed toward t h e end o f construction.
H a l f o f t h e t o t a l cash f l o w i s assumed t o occur a t 60% o f construction
period.
I n general, t h e conventional CAES design and the a d i a b a t i c CAES
designs developed by Acres American f o r the PEPCO s i t e were used as the
basis f o r most o f t h e comparisons.

The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s decision was

t h a t these studies were t h e most d e t a i l e d and employed widely applicable


assumptions.

A1 so, t h e PEPCO p l a n t had served as t h e basis f o r balance-

o f - p l a n t (BOP) estimates f o r t h e FBC study.

The CAES/CG design was t h e l e a s t d e t a i l e d o f a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n


sources; costs were based upon $/ kWe estimates from considerably e a r l ie r
design studies.

These costs were updated by using $/kWe c o s t estimates

derived from t h e CAES/FBC study ( l e s s , o f course, the c o s t o f the FBC


u n i t s ) , because these p l a n t designs a r e most a1ike.
During t h e normalization process, an e f f o r t was made t o n o t reengineer
t h e designs, t o minimize t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e r r o r .

Most o f the e f f o r t

was d i r e c t e d toward normal i z a t i o n o f bal ance-of-pl a n t items (such as


l a n d cost, swi tchyard design, and c o o l i n g systems), and l i t t l e e f f o r t
was made t o normalize t h e compressed-ai r systems themselves.
This approach r e s u l t e d i n comparisons based upon p l a n t s o f d i f f e r e n t
size, d i f f e r e n t storage media ( s a l t and hard rock), and s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t
storage capacity.

Although such comparisons are n o t i d e a l , they a r e probably

adequate t o judge t h e r e l a t i v e economic m e r i t s o f t h e CAES technologies.

A l o g i c a l n e x t step would be a complete normalization o f the CAES technologies


t o e x a c t l y t h e same p l a n t r a t i n g , storage size, and storage medium.
This approach would r e q u i r e major re- engineering o f the p l a n t designs,
and a considerably higher degree o f e f f o r t than was a v a i l a b l e f o r these
comparisons.
5.2

TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL COST PARAMETERS

Technical parameters and operating costs f o r t h e various designs


These data a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e
considered a r e summarized i n Table 5.1.
same as presented i n t h e design reports.

However, several design r e p o r t s

presented no breakdown o f operational costs i n t o f i x e d and v a r i a b l e


components, so t h i s breakdown was estimated t o a l l o w a n a l y s i s o f t h e
s e n s i t i v i t y o f power costs on capacity f a c t o r .

5.3

BUSBAR COST ESTIMATES


The economic performance o f t h e normalized p l a n t designs was compared

u s i n g the l e v e l i z i n g methodology presented i n t h e Technical Assessment


Guide (EPRI 1979).

L i f e - c y c l e costs were determined f o r a s e t o f base-

case economic assumptions; some of these assumptions were then v a r i e d t o


i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i v e busbar c o s t s under a l t e r n a t i v e assumptions.
A1 1 busbar estimates were over a range o f c a p a c i t y f a c t o r s (0.05 t o
0.25) and f o r two d i f f e r e n t compression energy c o s t s (10 mills/kWh and
25 mills/kWh).
5.3.1

Technical Parameters and t h e Cost o f Operation


The t e c h n i c a l parameters (e.g

., heat

r a t e , EER, storage c a p a c i t y ) f o r

t h e CAES t e c h n o l o g i e s compared i n t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e i n c l u d e d i n Table 5.2.


The conventional CAES system storage c a p a c i t y was reduced t o 8.3 hours
from 10 hours based on i n f o r m a t i o n obtained from Acres.

No changes were

made t o t h e r e s u l t s developed f o r t h e o r i g i n a l design s t u d i e s .

Operating

c o s t s a r e a l s o presented i n t h e t a b l e and a r e unchanged from t h e o r i g i n a l


design s t u d i e s .

Technical parameters and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e

peaking/intermediate l o a d technologies a r e l i s t e d i n Table 5.3.


5.3.2

Base-Case R e s u l t s
The assumptions employed i n t h e base case a r e l i s t e d i n Table 5.4.

The r e s u l t s o f t h e base-case a n a l y s i s a r e d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e s 5.1


(comparison o f CAES technologies), 5.2 (comparison a g a i n s t underground
pumped hydro, o i l - f i r e d combined cycle, and o i l - f i r e d combustion t u r b i n e ) ,
and 5.3 (a 50-year comparison a g a i n s t UPHS).

Cost curves f o r t h e more

expensive CAES technologies were e l i m i n a t e d from t h e l a t t e r two diagrams


so t h e r e s u l t s would be l e g i b l e .
The base case represents a s i t u a t i o n i n which f u e l o i l c o s t s e s c a l a t e
a t o n l y a moderate r a t e (8%/yr) w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o a l (7%) and compression
energy (7%) c o s t s .

The r e s u l t s i n F i g u r e 5.1 i n d i c a t e t h a t , i n general,

a d i a b a t i c CAES i s more economical a t t h e low charging energy cost,


whereas conventional CAES i s more economical a t h i g h charging energy
costs.

The o t h e r CAES concepts ( h y b r i d , FBCy and CG) become competi t i v e

o n l y a t t h e h i g h c a p a c i t y f a c t o r s f o r t h e h i g h compression energy c o s t
situation.

Oa)
0
CU
1
I
I

CU

m o o

TABLE 5.4.

Base-Case Financial and Cost Assumptions

Parameter
Fixed charge r a t e
Discount r a t e
Inflation r a t e
Escalation r a t e s
Fuel o i l
Coal
Compression energy
Capital expenditures
O&M
Energy prices (July 1979)
Fuel o i l
Coal
Baseload e l e c t r i c i t y
System lifetime
S t a r t of plant operation
Base year f o r cost estimates

Value
18% per yr
10% per y r
6% per y r
8% per
7% per
7% per
6% per
6% per

yr
yr
yr
yr
yr

$5.24/lo6 B t u
$1 .86/106 D t u
10, 25 mills/kWh
30 years ( a )
1990
July 1979

( a ) ~ h eb a t t e r i e s i n a lead acid battery storage system were assumed t o be


replaced every 10 years a t 55% of original cost.

10 mills

0.15

>
-.

0.20

0.25

CAPAC lTY FACTOR


CG ICONT

--- FBC
CG ICYCL
---- HYBRID
.--.--

... -...

-FIGURE 5 . 1 .

CONV
ADIABATIC

Comparison o f CAES Technologies under Base-Case Conditions

10 mills

---

......

..........

.......
.... ....

\ .-.
\ .'

..

\
I

COMBUSTION
-( TURBINE

................
...

.................................

.
'\

'

-...

OIL-FIRED
COMBINED CYCLE

-...-

AD1 ABATI C
&AES

CAES
I

b mills

s-

COMBUSTION
TURBINE

COMBINED CYCLE

-................

CAPAC llY FACTOR


COMBUSTION TURBINE
OIL-FIRED COMBINED CYCLE
CONVENTIONAL CAES
ADIABATIC CAES
COMBINED CYCLE

...--

FIGURE 5.2.

Comparison o f Conventional and Adiabatic CAES Against


A1 ternative Pea king/Intermedi ate Load Technologies

10 mills

*%..

'$\
"\ \
"'

CONVENT1ONAL

/'\

CAE S..
-.i.

'*\

UPHS

.*.'

*\

...-...

--

5
loo

a
*.-

COWEMIONAL CAES
ADIABATIC CAES
UpHS
I

..*-...

ADIABATIC
CAES

Og***-.

-.-

3%
25 mills

CONVENTIONAL
CAES

... -...
**

00

CONVENTIONAL CAES

ADIABATIC CAES
UPHS
I

150
0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

o. n

CAPACITY FACTOR
All storage units are sized for 10 hours of storage. plant lifetime is 50 years. CAES turbomachinery
and TES fill are replaced after 50 years of operation.

FIGURE 5.3.

Comparative Economic Performance o f CAES and UPHS under BaseCase Conditions

I n F i g u r e 5.2,

conventional and a d i a b a t i c CAES a r e compared a g a i n s t

o i 1- burning peaking (combustion t u r b i n e ) and intermediate load (combined


A t t h e low compression energy cost, both CAES

c y c l e ) technologies.

technologies have lower power costs than both o i l - f i r e d systems.

A t the

high compression energy cost, both CAES techno1ogies have lower power
costs than t h e combustion turbine, b u t t h e o i 1- f i r e d combined c y c l e
power costs a r e lower than both o f t h e CAES technologies.
I n Figure 5.3,

t h e two CAES u n i t s a r e compared a g a i n s t a 2000-

MW underground pumped hydro storage p l a n t , which i s c l e a r l y more economical

under a l l circumstances.

However, r e d u c t i o n i n p l a n t s i z e can s i g n i f i c a n t l y

increase c a p i t a l c o s t per kW f o r UPH.

The recent Acres r e p o r t on a d i a b a t i c

CAES i n d i c a t e d an increase o f about 17% i n l e v e l i z e d power c o s t when UPH


p l a n t s i z e was reduced from 2000 MW t o 1000 MW.

However, t h e c a p i t a l

c o s t estimate i s based on very p r e l i m i n a r y engineering and c o s t estimates


and may be erroneous.

Generally, there a r e no d e t a i l e d engineering and

c o s t estimates f o r UPH p l a n t s below 2000 MW.

T h i s makes i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

o f the r e l a t i v e economics o f UPH and second-generation CAES p l a n t s d i f f i c u l t .


Such i n f o r m a t i o n would make r e s o l u t i o n o f optimal CAES and UPH p l a n t
sizes f o r f u r t h e r development p o s s i b l e and g i v e u t i l i t i e s a c l e a r e r
p i c t u r e o f t h e c a p i t a l and l e v e l i z e d costs o f c e n t r a l s t a t i o n storage
options.
The 1eve1i z e d power costs f o r a d i a b a t i c CAES and conventional CAES
a r e compared w i t h a l e a d a c i d b a t t e r y storage system i n Figure 5.4.
Both high and low estimates a r e given f o r l e a d a c i d b a t t e r y storage
system power c o s t t o r e f l e c t t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e i n p u t c o s t data.
The b a t t e r y storage system considered here i s n o t a 200-MW c e n t r a l i z e d
p l a n t , b u t r a t h e r a d i s t r i b u t e d system o f smaller 10 t o 20 MW/40 t o 100 MWh
i n s t a l l a t i o n s t o t a l l i n g 200 MW. This approach i s somewhat a r b i t r a r y and
was taken because i t appeared u n l i k e l y t h a t a u t i l i t y would f i n d a
c e n t r a l b a t t e r y storage p l a n t very a t t r a c t i v e .

Figure 5.4 shows t h a t

a d i a b a t i c CAES has more a t t r a c t i v e power costs than t h i s d i s t r i b u t e d


b a t t e r y system under a1 1 base-case c o n d i t i o n s considered.

However, i t

10 mills

LEAD
ACID
BATER

ADIABATIC

0.05

0.10

---- LEAD ACl D EATERY

0.15

0.20

CAPACITY FACTOR

... -CONV CAES

--

FIGURE 5.4.

ADIABATIC CAES

Comparison o f Conventional and A d i a b a t i c CAES w i t h a Lead


A c i d Storage B a t t e r y Sys tem

should be r e a l i z e d t h a t t h i s comparison i s based on some r a t h e r a r b i t r a r y


assumptions r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n and mode o f o p e r a t i o n o f t h e
b a t t e r y system.

Care should be e x e r c i s e d i n t h e use o f t h i s r e s u l t

u n t i l a study of t h e r e l a t i v e c o s t s can be completed i n g r e a t e r depth.


High O i l - P r i c e E s c a l a t i o n Rate

5.3.3

I f a l l of t h e o r i g i n a l base-case parameters a r e assumed, b u t f u e l

o i l p r i c e s a r e e s c a l a t e d a t 10% p e r y e a r (3% over c o a l and compression


energy), then a d i a b a t i c CAES i s t h e most c o s t - e f f e c t i v e under a1 1 circumstances
i n v e s t i g a t e d (see F i g u r e 5.5).

A t t h e low con~pressionenergy cost,

a d i a b a t i c CAES i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s u p e r i o r t o a l l CAES t e c h n o l o g i e s and t h e


o i l - f i r e d generation plants.

A t t h e h i g h compression energy c o s t , coal

g a s i f i c a t i o n and f l u i d i z e d bed combustion approach t h e economic performance


of a d i a b a t i c CAES.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a d i a b a t i c CAES and UPHS

remains unchanged from t h e base case, because n e i t h e r burn f u e l o i l .


5.3.4

Municipal Financing
The c o s t of c a p i t a l and f i x e d charge r a t e employed i n t h e a n a l y s i s

t h u s f a r a r e those suggested by EPRI i n t h e Technical Assessment Guide


(1979) f o r a n a l y s i s o f f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n technologies.

These r a t e s

represent a typical financial structure f o r a p r i v a t e u t 5 l i t y .

The

e f f e c t o f a m u n i c i p a l u t i l i t y f i n a n c i n g s t r u c t u r e on t h e economic performance
of t h e CAES t e c h n o l o g i e s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 5.6.

The assumed c o s t

o f c a p i t a l i s 8% and t h e f i x e d charge r a t e i s 12%; a l l o t h e r assumptions


a r e t h e same as i n t h e base case.

Such an assumption f a v o r s t h e more

h i g h l y c a p i t a l - i n t e n s i v e technologies, and t h i s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t i n t h e
curves.

A t t h e low compression energy c o s t , a d i a b a t i c CAES e x h i b i t s

c o n s i d e r a b l e advantage o v e r i t s c l o s e s t competitors; a t t h e h i g h e r
compression energy c o s t , a d i a b a t i c CAES m a i n t a i n s a small advantage o v e r
i t s competitors, except below 12% c a p a c i t y f a c t o r , where t h e o i l - f i r e d
combined c y c l e p l a n t i s l e a s t expensive.

-- ---10 mills

-'GBUSTI~
TURBINE

---- --

C O G S T I O N
TURBINE

OIL-FIRED

................
...-,

-I
-.--.
-- 2

FIGURE 5.5.

CAPACllY FACTOR
COMBUSTION N R B INE
OIL+ IRED COMBINED CYCLE
CONVENTIONAL CAES
CGICONT
,HYBRID
: FBC
: CGICYCL
ADIABATIC

Comparison o f CAES Technologies as sum in^ High Fuel O i l P r i c e


Escalation

--TziF

10 mills

TURBINE

OIL- FIRED
COMBINED CYCLE

ADIABATIC
I

COMBUSTION

COMBINED CYCLE

125

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

CAPAC lTY FACTOR


- - COMBUSTION TURBINE
................ OIL+ IRED COMBINED CYCLE
CG ICONT
...
CONVENTIONAL
.--.
CGICYCLE
FBC
HYBRID
ADIABATIC

-----

FIGURE 5.6.

Comparison o f CAES Technologies Economic Performance under an


A1 t e r n a t i v e F i n a n c i a l S t r u c t u r e

5.3.5

S e n s i t i v i t y t o C a p i t a l Cost
F i g u r e 5.7 i n d i c a t e s the e f f e c t o f varying c a p i t a l c o s t upon the

economic performance o f a d i a b a t i c CAES.

The i n s i d e bracketing l i n e s

represent + $10 m i l 1ion; the o u t s i d e brackets represent +- $50 m i l l ion.


From t h i s graph i t i s obvious t h a t any changes i n the r e l a t i v e performance
o f the CAES technologies can r e s u l t o n l y w i t h very l a r g e c a p i t a l c o s t
changes, such as might be r e a l i z e d i n t h e turbomachinery, cavern, TES,
o r reheat technology costs (FBC o r CG).

Any e r r o r s i n BOP accounts w i l l

r e s u l t i n i n s i g n i f i c a n t changes t o t h e r e l a t i v e performance o f the CAES


technol ogi es

.
-

10 mills

\
\. .......'..
...... 3..
.......

...;\ . :.. .....


.
.....

...

...

'"-..-CONVENTIONAL
CAES

75
0.05

.....

ADIABATIC
CAES

. . . . . . . .e

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

CAPACITY FACTOR

...-...

CONVENTIONAL CAES

---- ADIABATIC CAES


FIGURE 5.7.

5.4

S e n s i t i v i t y o f Economic Performance t o V a r i a t i o n s i n Capital


Cost.

DISCUSSION
Through t h e b r i e f analyses developed here, i t appears t h a t a d i a b a t i c

CAES has t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r c o s t - e f f e c t i v e energy storage.


Under the assumptions made here, a d i a b a t i c CAES i s the most c o s t - e f f e c t i v e

technology i n :
a l l cases a t low compression energy costs

h i g h compression energy c o s t and h i g h f u e l - o i l p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n


h i g h compression energy c o s t and municipal f i n a n c i n g .
The o n l y s i t u a t i o n i n which another CAES technology appears t o be more
c o s t - e f f e c t i v e i s under t h e base-case c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e higher compression
energy c o s t .

I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , conventional CAES i s t h e l e a s t expensive

CAES technology, b u t t h e o i l - f i r e d combined c y c l e i s s u p e r i o r t o a l l o f


t h e CAES technologies.
Most of t h e u t i l i t y CAES s t u d i e s have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e use o f CAES
technologies a t 15 t o 25%. Recently an i n v e s t i g a t i o n was performed f o r
t h e Department o f Energy t o assess t h e impact o f l o a d management techniques
and t i m e - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d e l e c t r i c i t y p r i c i n g on t h e f u t u r e need f o r
i n t e r m e d i a t e and peaking generating techno1o g i es (Barrangerd and Campbell
1980).

Focusing on t h e y e a r 2000, i t was concluded t h a t under a broad

range o f l o a d growth and l o a d management scenarios, t h e r e w i l l s t i l l be


need f o r peaking c a p a c i t y .

The r e q u i r e d c a p a c i t y w i t h a c a p a c i t y

f a c t o r of 15% o r l e s s c o u l d be up t o 30% of i n s t a l l e d capacity.

Adiabati,~

CAES performs b e t t e r a t h i g h e r c a p a c i t y f a c t o r s (because o f i t s h i g h


c a p i t a l c o s t ) , b u t i t s t i l l i s c o m p e t i t i v e a t these lower c a p a c i t y
factors.
One r e s u l t o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t h a t h y b r i d CAES does n o t
e x h i b i t t h e lowest power c o s t s under any o f t h e scenarios.

I n t h e base

case i t i s more expensive than t h e a d i a b a t i c CAES a t low compression


energy costs, and more expensive than conventional CAES a t h i g h compression
energy costs.

Under h i g h f u e l - o i 1 e s c a l a t i o n r a t e s i t i s considerably

more expensive than a d i a b a t i c CAES.

Under municipal f i n a n c i n g i t i s

more expensive than a l l o f t h e o t h e r CAES technologies.

Hybrid CAES,

then, w i l l be t h e choice technology o n l y i n r e s t r i c t e d s i t u a t i o n s , such


as when t h e r e i s inadequate excess baseload c a p a c i t y t o support an
a d i a b a t i c CAES, and low compression energy and h i g h f u e l costs make i t
p r e f e r r a b l e t o conventional CAES.
One m i g h t argue t h a t t h e h y b r i d CAES has been penalized by a small
p l a n t size.

However, upon c l o s e r examination, t h i s does n o t seem t o be

the case, because i t has an equal advantage i n the form o f a s a l t cavern.


The estimate o f the c a p i t a l c o s t f o r t h e 220-MWe MSS conventional CAES
p l a n t was almost e x a c t l y the same as f o r the 924-MWe PEPCO conventional
CAES p l a n t :

the advantages o f scale i n the l a r g e r p l a n t were compensated

f o r by the s a l t cavern.

Because there a r e l i k e l y t o be few economies o f

scale f o r the above-ground TES i n t h e MSS h y b r i d CAES design (and t h i s


i s t h e o n l y major d i f f e r e n c e between the conventional and h y b r i d p l a n t s ) ,
then i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e MSS c o s t estimate used i n t h i s study i s
roughly equivalent t o t h e c a p i t a l c o s t per kW o f a 900-MWe h y b r i d p l a n t
w i t h a mined hard rock cavern.
The CAESICG and CAESIFBC concepts show lowest power costs o n l y a t
high capacity f a c t o r s and h i g h charging energy c o s t under t h e assumption
o f a l a r g e d i f f e r e n t i a l e s c a l a t i o n r a t e between coal and o i l .

The

CAES/CCG concept tends t o look good a t several h i g h compression energy


c o s t scenarios because i t uses no compression energy.
The CAESICG design and c o s t studies used as a basis f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s
were l i t t l e more than i n i t i a l estimates o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f coupling
CAES t o the coal technologies, and were n o t commensurate w i t h t h e o t h e r
design studies.

Therefore, more d e f i n i t i v e work must be done on t h i s

technology before t h e i r economic performance can be accurately assessed.


However, given t h e c o s t and performance estimates from the source studies,
the economic a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f CAESICG appears t o be more l i m i t e d than
i s t h e case f o r conventional and/or a d i a b a t i c CAES.
Each o f t h e CAES technologies appears t o have i t s use depending
upon 1 ) t h e c o s t of c a p i t a l t o t h e u t i l i t y , 2) the amount o f excess
baseload energy a v a i l a b l e , and 3) the expected r a t e o f f u e l o i l p r i c e
escalation.

A d i a b a t i c CAES, however, seems t o demonstrate t h e most

p o t e n t i a l f o r lowest c o s t e l e c t r i c a l storage across a range o f these


factors.

6.0

TECHNOLOGICAL STATUS

This s e c t i o n examines t h e technological v i a b i l i t y o f the f o u r


second-generation concepts under consideration.

Design o r component
a v a i l a b i l i t y problems t h a t might preclude t h e design and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
a demonstration p l a n t i n t h e l a t e 1980s a r e pointed out.
6.1

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY


The question of technological s t a t u s o f each concept was addressed

t o some depth i n i t s corresponding design r e p o r t .

Most r e p o r t s concluded

t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t b a r r i e r s t o technical f e a s i b i l i t y e x i s t .

However,

c e r t a i n design developments, depending on s p e c i f i c concepts, must occur


t o assure t h e a b i l i t y t o undertake a demonstration p l a n t i n the l a t t e r
h a l f o f the 1980s.

Only t h e CAES/CG concept was determined n o t t o be

t e c h n i c a l l y v i a b l e i n t h i s time frame.

The conclusions o f a l l of these

design r e p o r t s regarding technological s t a t u s a r e summarized herein.


6.1.1

Adiabatic Compressed A i r Energy Storage Concept


I n t h e i r design r e p o r t , Acres American concluded t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t

b a r r i e r s a r e foreseen t o t h e technical f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e a d i a b a t i c CAES


concept.

However, a number o f design areas r e q u i r e more i n t e n s i v e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n before t h e d e t a i 1ed engineering o f a p l a n t can proceed.

..
.

The p r i n c i p a l areas are:

thermal energy storage m a t e r i a l s e l e c t i o n


high-temperature a i r s h a f t s
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s u i t a b l e valves and p i p i n g
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f turbomachinery.
The f o l l o w i n g exerpts from t h e Acres American f i n a l r e p o r t i d e n t i f y

p l a n t design and operating issues.

"A number o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s e x i s t w i t h thermal energy storage m a t e r i a l


p r o p e r t i e s and behavior i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f the a d i a b a t i c CAES a p p l i c a t i o n .
Unknown a r e such items as c y c l i c l i f e , and p a r t i c u l a t e generation r a t e

and s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h e various storage materials.

Pebble bed
containment vessel w a l l stresses due t o thermal expansion a r e unknown,
b u t do n o t appear t o be severe o r uncontrollable.

Prediction o f the

exact behavior o f such l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f m a t e r i a l s i n s i n g l e containments i s


somewhat u n c e r t a i n as comparably sized systems t h a t operate under s i m i l a r
thermal c o n d i t i o n s have never been b u i l t .

Performance p r e d i c t i o n i s ,

however, l a r g e l y a f u n c t i o n o f how w e l l a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n t h e bed


can be predicted, and t h e r e f o r e depends upon c o n s t r u c t i o n features which
ensure as-designed conditions.

Part - load and p a r t i a l - c y c l i n g TES system

behavior were n o t i n v e s t i g a t e d t o any depth i n t h i s study.

Although no

s i g n i f i c a n t d e v i a t i o n s a r e expected, behavior under such c o n d i t i o n s must


be defined t o c l a r i f y operating procedures and l i m i t a t i o n s . "
"Design o f t h e h i g h temperature a i r s h a f t s received considerable
a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g t h i s study.

The arrangement o f t h e pipe t o accommodate

s t a r t up expansion i s , o f course, c r i t i c a l t o successful containment o f


t h e stored a i r .

The design approach selected should be adequate, and,

although unusual i n construction, appears w e l l w i t h i n the c a p a b i l i t y of


c o n s t r u c t i o n techno1 ogy.

"

"The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s u i t a b l e valves was i n v e s t i g a t e d by both Acres


and Dresser C l a r k and does n o t appear t o be a problem a t t h i s stage.
The l a r g e p i p i n g r e q u i r e d i n t h e low pressure p l a n t sections w i l l i n v o l v e
custom f a b r i c a t i o n , b u t adequate f a c i l i t i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e . "
"The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f turbomachinery based upon commercially offered
designs appears good.

Some m o d i f i c a t i o n t o standard product designs would

be r e q u i r e d t o achieve t h e temperature l i m i t s proposed i n t h i s study


(870F maximum), b u t no insuperable problems a r e a n t i c i p a t e d . The use of
temperatures above those proposed would r e q u i r e extensive compressor
redesign o r development o f new designs. The design c o n f i g u r a t i o n
developed i n t h i s study does i n c l u d e a h i g h horsepower gearbox i n t h e
c e n t r i f u g a l compressor t r a i n , which is a s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t component t h a t
would r e q u i r e design eval uation.

Other compressor arrangements a r e

p o s s i b l e which could e l i m i n a t e t h i s gearbox."

"The unusually large number of turbomachinery components for


the conceptual design, raising some concerns regarding system r e l i a b i l i t y ,
i s the direct result of the study requirement to use commercially
available designs and a limited e f f o r t towards optimized machinery selection.
Actual machinery for an adiabatic CAES plant would likely involve fewer
rotating components, w i t h some development of new designs, regard1 ess
of whether supplied by Dresser, Sulzer/Brown Boveri Corporation or any
other manufacturer. Reduction of the number of machines would benefit
re1 iabil i ty, should benefit plant cost and physical layout, appears we1 1
within technological limits, and may be performed by the manufacturers
themselves i f a market i s shown to exist."
6.1.2

Hybrid Compressed Air Energy Storage Concept

United Engineers & Constructors in their conceptual design study of


the hybrid CAES system concluded that no technological problems exist in
designing and constructing either the a i r storage system or balance-ofplant (BOP) systems. "BOP equipment systems and/or equipment similar to
a CAES plant are currently available from a number of manufacturers or
suppliers. This equipment has used modern power plant designs and i s
both reliable and cost-effective. Similarly, solution mined s a l t caverns
are used extensively for petroleum product and gas storage. Given a
well defined s a l t dome lithology, the integrity of a s a l t cavern can be
predicted w i t h only common, available analytical tools, and present day
mining techniques."
"However, the turbomachinery and thermal storage systems for the
hybrid CAES design will require some R&D; namely:
Turbomachinery. A1 though a1 1 turbomachinery i s avai lab1 e for the
baseline plant, the hybrid turbine will require some product development."
"For a conventional CAES plant, the HP turbine exhausts directly t o
the LP combustor. This a i r flow pattern can be conveniently arranged in
a single casing machine. Such a conventional CAES turbine i s currently
a standard commercial machinery i tem from the turbomachinery subcontractor,
Brown Boveri Corporation (BBC ) . "

"However, the h y b r i d CAES t u r b i n e a i r f l o w p a t t e r n d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y


from the baseline p l a n t turbine.
the TES vessel.
connection.

The HP t u r b i n e exhaust i s piped t o

Thus t h e t u r b i n e casing r e q u i r e s a f l o w path nozzle

The conventional CAES HPILP t u r b i n e cannot be used.

o u t e r casing must be length@ned t o accommodate the nozzle;

The

the i n t e r n a l

s t a t i o n a r y t u r b i n e p a r t s must be modified, and the r o t o r must be lengthened


between t h e HP and LP sections.

Presently, BBC i s n o t c e r t a i n whether a

s i n g l e o r two-casing HPILP t u r b i n e i s necessary."


"Development o f the h y b r i d CAES t u r b i n e w i l l r e q u i r e a development
time of about 3 years.
available.

The remaining turbomachinery items a r e c u r r e n t l y

These include:

the a i r compressors
t h e t u r b i n e stop and c o n t r o l valves
t h e motor generator
t h e gearcase
t h e clutches
t h e heat exchangers and recuperator."
Thermal Energy Storage.

"The thermal energy storage system design

i s based, as c l o s e l y as possible, on commercially a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l s


and conservative assumptions and/or design codes.

For the two main

p a r t s o f t h e TES, t h e pressure vessel and the thermal f i l l , o n l y t h e


thermal f i 11 r e q u i r e s any R&D e f f o r t .

The post- tensioned concrete

pressure vessel design i s based on established engineering design and


c o n s t r u c t i o n p r a c t i c e s used today on l a r g e power p l a n t p r o j e c t s .

Thus,

no R&D r e l a t e d t o t h e pressure vessel i s required."


"The thermal f i l l - r e l a t e d R&D i s suggested t o reduce t h e degree o f
conservation t h a t was incorporated i n t h e design i n t h e i n t e r e s t of
p l a n t re1i a b i l i t y .

The r e s u l t s o f any o f these R&D p r o j e c t s would:

reduce t h e volume o f the Denstone f i l l


suggest a l e s s expensive thermal fill

reduce the BOP equipment, o r


e l i m i n a t e t h e i n n e r basket."

" This suggested research and development includes:


determine t h e behavior o f Denstone under combined dead l o a d and
thermal c y c l i n g
determine t h e l a t e r a l pressure exerted by t h e Denstone f i l l , and
t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e pressure on t h e long term s t a b i l i t y o f t h e f i l l
determine long- term degradates o f s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e f i l l
determine long- term dusting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Denstone
f i n d any o t h e r m a t e r i a l s s u i t a b l e f o r a thermal f i l l
determine i f a non- spherical s e l f supporting m a t r i x , such as b r i c k s
o r i n t e r l o c k i n g cheekers, i s f e a s i b l e and c o s t e f f e c t i v e
analyze t h e temperature p r o f i l e o f the TES f i l l as a f u n c t i o n o f
time
analyze t h e e f f e c t o f long- term creep deformations o f t h e support
basket, on l a t e r a l pressures and stresses on t h e Denstone f i l l
6.1.3

."

Compressed A i r Energy Storage/Pressurized F l u i d i z e d Bed Combustion


Concept
U n i t e d Technologies Research Center concluded t h a t , " w i t h s u i t a b l e

incentives, a f i r s t generation, c o a l - f i r e d open-bed CAESIPFBC power


p l a n t could become commercial sometime during t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e
1980 decade.

The f i r s t date o f commercial operation would f o l l o w by 6

t o 8 years, depending on t h e time r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n necessary permits


and on the s i z e o f t h e p l a n t . "

A number o f problems must be solved t o

a l l o w commercialization on t h i s time table.


"Off- the- she1f FBC and turbomachi nery equipment p r e s e n t l y do n o t
e x i s t f o r FBC/CAES a p p l i c a t i o n s ; thus, t h e r e a r e R&D e f f o r t s r e q u i r e d
f o r each component.

Small scale, commercial f l u i d bed b o i l e r systems

can be engineered now.

However, t h e l a r g e r , higher temperature FBC

equipment associated w i t h CAES systems r e q u i r e s continued development.


The major R&D requirements f o r f l u i d bed combustors f o r CAES appl i c a t i o n s
i n c l u d e feeders f o r t h e coal and sorbent, devices f o r ensuring e f f i c i e n t
l a t e r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f u e l i n t h e bed, containment f o r the combustor
(PFBC) , d i s t r i b u t o r s f o r t h e f l u i d i z i n g and combustion a i r , heat t r a n s f e r

surfaces f o r both in- bed and above-bed tubes i f used, depressurization


systems f o r spent sorbent and fuel ash, and c o n t r o l systems f o r load
following."

"I f an AFBC were used i n a CAES power p l a n t system a p p l i c a t i o n , the


m o d i f i c a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g premium f u e l - f i r e d turbomachinery should n o t
produce any s i g n i f i c a n t problems.

A1 though recent PFBC/turbomachi nery

t e s t r e s u l t s a r e promising, t h e t u r b i n e s f o r expansion o f gases from a


PFBC s t i l l represent a s i g n i f i c a n t design u n c e r t a i n t y a t t h i s time."
"The major areas o f turbomachinery R&D would be d i r e c t e d toward
c o m p a t i b i l i t y between a PFBC and t h e turbine.

The e f f e c t o f erosion

on gas t u r b i n e s must be b e t t e r documented, and e f f e c t i v e gas cleanup


systems must be developed t o c o n t r o l p a r t i c u l a t e s .
developed which w i l l l i m i t deposition.

Methods must be

The corrosion mechanism must

be b e t t e r understood, and coating m a t e r i a l s must be developed t h a t w i l l


n o t o n l y withstand c o r r o s i o n b u t t h e combined e f f e c t s o f c o r r o s i o n and
erosion.
6.1.4

"

Compressed A i r Energy Storage/Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n Concept


The technological readiness o f t h e CAES/CG concept was n o t examined

i n such depth o f d e t a i 1 as t h e o t h e r second-generation concepts, because


a conceptual p l a n t design was n o t included i n t h e document by Giramonti and
Sadala (1979), which forms a basis f o r t h i s assessment.

However, i t i s

p o s s i b l e t o reach several important conclusions regarding t h e p o t e n t i a l


s t a t u s of CAES/CG technology from generic issues r a i s e d by recent coal
g a s i f i e r technology development.

A c y c l i n g CAES/CG p l a n t would r e q u i r e a g a s i f i e r system capable o f


d a i l y startups, r a p i d load- following, and shutdowns.

There a r e serious

questions regarding t h e a b i l i t y o f any g a s i f i e r system now under development


t o accommodate such d a i l y c y c l i n g w i t h any degree o f r e 1i a b i l it y .

These

questions have l e d UTRC and EPRI t o conclude t h a t the c y c l i n g CAES/CG


concept would n o t be s u i t a b l e f o r u t i 1it y a p p l i c a t i o n .

The prognosis f o r CAES/CCG appears more favorable.

I t appears t h a t

e s s e n t i a l l y a1 1 equipment r e q u i r e d f o r a CAES/CCG p l a n t i s e i t h e r commercially


a v a i l a b l e o r w i t h i n t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f t h e a r t w i t h t h e exception o f
the gasifier.
Coal g a s i f i c a t i o n has been a common i n d u s t r i a l process s i n c e t h e
e a r l y 1800s; extensive i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e on t h i s technology.
However, these processes have been h i s t o r i c a l l y h i g h i n c o s t and t h e r m a l l y
inefficient.

Recent i n t e r e s t i n developing a clean fuel source based on

p l e n t i f u l coal has l e d t o renewed research and development i n coal


g a s i f i c a t i o n by b o t h t h e government and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s .

A number o f

advanced g a s i f i e r types a r e under development and/or demonstration.

For
a v a r i e t y o f reasons t h i s work has n o t advanced s u f f i c i e n t l y t o r e l i a b l y
estimate t h e commercialization p o t e n t i a l of t h i s technology.

I f the

c u r r e n t l e v e l o f research and development e f f o r t continues, i t has been


estimated t h a t s u f f i c i e n t progress may occur i n t h e mid- t o l a t e 1980s
t o a l l o w development o f CAES/CCG a p p l i c a t i o n s i n t h e 1990s.

6.2

REASSESSMENT OF EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY


Because of t h e inlportance of equipment a v a i l a b i l i t y t o t h e f e a s i b i l i t y

of an e a r l y demonstration o f second-generation CAES technology, a study


was funded w i t h ENTEC Research Associates t o independently reassess t h e
c a p a b i l i t y of i n d u s t r y t o supply t h i s equipment a t a schedule compatible

.
.
.
.

w i t h program needs.

S p e c i f i c questions addressed included:

Are t h e uppermost o p e r a t i n g requirements o f second-generation CAES


systems w i t h i n i n d u s t r y t e c h n i c a l and manufacturing s t a t e of t h e a r t ?
What i s t h e l e a d t i m e r e q u i r e d t o upgrade/redesign c u r r e n t l y
a v a i l a b l e equipment f o r second-generation CAES a p p l i c a t i o n ?
What i n f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r s w i l l synchronize i n d u s t r y ' s developmental
e f f o r t s w i t h t h e CAES Techno1ogy Program' s commerci a1 iz a t i o n t i m e
frame f o r second- generation concepts?
What R&D a c t i v i t i e s , i f any, should be taken t o s t i m u l a t e t h e
e a r l y commercialization o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n ?

Based on a review of the second generation design studies, attention


was focussed on the following principal areas of concern:
turbomachinery design, manufacturing or operating s h o r t f a i l s which
niay 1imi t the early commercialization of adiabatic CAES application
the a v a i l a b i l i t y of high-pressure and -temperature, large-diameter
alloy valves
the a v a i l a b i l i t y of piping and expansion joints
the technical f e a s i b i l i t y of concrete vessels f o r TES containment.

.
.
..

In addition, an independent review of the cycling coal g a s i f i e r was


performed t o reassess the discouraging outlook for the CAES/CG concept
provided earl i e r by the United Techno1ogi es Research study.
The following subsections summarize the r e s u l t s of t h i s study.
6.2.1

Turbomachinery Availability

The capabi 1i t i e s of principal turbomachinery manufacturers were


surveyed by questionnaire and personal v i s i t s . Responses from these
manufacturers on the s t a t e of commercial readiness were f a r from uniform.
However, several key issues became apparent, and include:

.
.
.

No manufacturers have turbomachinery t r a i n s operating under similar


conditions t o CAES/FBC and adiabatic CAES systems. However, most
turbomachinery manufacturers surveyed were confident t h a t compressors,
expanders and gears can be manufactured to the operating requirement
of CAES/FBC and adiabatic CAES applications.
The estimated developmental/scaleup time frame ranges from 2 t o 5
years from the date of order. A detailed technical investigation,
analysis, and, i n some cases, a prototype developmental program
will be required t o upgrade/modify current designs f o r CAES application.
Strong market indications ( e i t h e r firm orders that will allow the
company t o write off developmental cost on the f i r s t machine, or
strong economic indications t h a t CAES i s financially a t t r a c t i v e to
u t i l i t i e s ) will be necessary to stimulate a more active i n t e r e s t by
manufacturers in directing resources t o upgrade t h e i r components
f o r CAES appl ications .

6.2.2

From the perspective of depth of technical research required,


adiabatic CAES technical issues are more readily identifiable with
possible solutions than the CAESIFBC. In the case of CAES/FBC the
potential "showstopper" is the development required for the gas
turbine LTlOO and the associated coal-fired fluidized-bed system.
Commercial Readiness of the Valve Industry

A survey of the valve industry's capabilities to supply large


diameter (48 in. to 96 in. ) high pressure and temperature valves indicates
that valves in quantity up to 60 in. in diameter for the pressure and
temperature ranges required for adiabatic compressed air energy storage
(ACAES) systems can be supplied. Sizes up to 120 in. in diameter have
been suppl ied to refineries for fl uid catalytic cracking service; however,
the continuing functional ability of these larger diameter valves requires
considerable scheduled maintainence for reliable service. All manufacturers
surveyed are confident that 60 in. diameter and larger valves meeting
ACAES operating requirements can be met; however, a minimum of 2 years for
design modification and testing is required before a fully functional
valve can be manufactured.
6.2.3

Commercial Readiness of the Piping and Expansion Joint Industries

The ENTEC study revealed that pipes operating under ACAES conditions
are readily avai lab1e. However, 1arge-diameter pipe (greater than 90 in. )
wi 11 be designed and manufactured under ASME pressure vessel code Session
VIII, Division I, rather than piping codes specified under ANSI B31.3.
The code variance will not affect pipe availability although it will
have an impact on its cost.
Thermal expansion of the well casing is routinely handled by the
oillgas industry when the wells operate at temperatures less than 650F.
Temperatures greater than 650F will require significant developmental
work in both cement material and cementing practices.

Above-ground p i p i n g stresses due t o thermal expansion can be contained


by the proper a p p l i c a t i o n o f c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e expansion j o i n t s and
the use of expansion loops.
6.2.4

Assessment o f Concrete Pressure Vessel f o r an Advanced Compressed


A i r Storage P l a n t

An assessment of t h e prestressed concrete thermal energy storage


(TES) pressure vessel used i n t h e conceptual design o f a h y b r i d CAES
p l a n t revealed no major problems regarding concrete a v a i l a b i l i t y o r
vessel c o n s t r u c t i o n and operation.

Methods and techniques have been

developed, m a t e r i a l standards have been established, and l o g i s t i c s


problems have been resolved as a r e s u l t of experience i n the nuclear
power i n d u s t r y .

Reactor containment vessels o f nuclear power p l a n t s are

s i m i l a r t o t h e TES prestressed concrete pressure vessels; t h e f o l l o w i n g


f a c t o r s apply:

A r e a c t o r containment vessel i s approximately 210


f t h i g h by 150 f t i n diameter. The w a l l thickness o f t h e vessel i s
structure size

4.5 f t f o r t h e s i d e w a l l s and 3.5 f t f o r the dome, which has a


r a d i u s o f 70 ft.

Thus, t h e i n s i d e diameter o f t h e vessel i s approximately


140 f t and t h e volume i s approximately 2.6 m i l l i o n ft 3 .
structural characteristics

- The

vessel i s designed and constructed

t o withstand a l i g h t a i r c r a f t impact, an earthquake o f a magnitude


o f 6 ( R i c h t e r Scale), and a r e a c t o r accident r e s u l t i n g from equipment

f a i l u r e s , l o s s o f coolant (LOCA) , and o t h e r malfunctions.

- Procedures and m a t e r i a l

standards have been w e l l


defined and documented by t h e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A t various stages o f c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e containment vessel, t e s t s a r e
construction

conducted t o assure s a f e t y and i n t e g r i t y

Vendors have experienced

no problems conforming t o t h e s t r i n g e n t standards and supplying the


material.

6.2.5

Technical Feasibility of Cyclic Coal Gasification and CAES

An integrated coal gasification/CAES system was recently conceived


as an a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r generating u t i l i t y peak-load power. A
number of gasification/CAES system concepts have been investigated by
several power equipment manufacturers and archi tectural-engineering
firms and a f e a s i b i l i t y analysis was performed. The results of the
analysis indicated:

.
6.3

I t i s unlikely t h a t an integrated coal gasification/CAES plant can


be operated i n a daily cyclic operation such t h a t the coal gasification
plant will be shut down and maintain a "hot" standby condition.
This i s made based on the projected longer response time and potential
operating problems resulting from frequent shutdown and startup.
These operational problems may include the thermal s t r e s s on material,
formation of undesirable 1iquid products, and excess corrosion and
embri ttlements i n a coal g a s i f i e r environment.
I t i s technically feasible t o operate the coal gasification process
a t partial load (approximately 50%) without adversely affecting the
performance of a process. However, the f e a s i b i l i t y of such operation
hinges on further economic advantages and possible use of fuel gas
during off-peak periods.
DISCUSSION

The hybrid CAES and adiabatic CAES concepts appear nearest t o


technological readiness o f the second-generation concepts considered.
Only a few problems remain t o be solved before design and construction
of a demonstration plant could comence. Significant areas of concern
f o r the hybrid concept are:
identification and performance assessment of TES materials
engineering development of turbomachinery suitable f o r service i n
t h i s specific application.

..

Research and development to provide the required TES information


will require 2 or 3 years and must be completed before design i s
substantially underway, because important design decisions hinge on
TES performance. Turbomachinery engineering can be performed as part
of procurement and should require 3 to 5 years.
The adiabatic CAES concept would require essentially the same
research and development regarding TES performance and turbomachinery
engineering as the hybrid concept. In addition, engineering development
would be required on:
large high-pressure valves
high-temperature grouting materials and procedures ( i f required by
particular design).
This development would require 2 t o 3 years and could be performed
d u r i n g design and procurement.
The CAES/PFBC concept appears to require substantially more RhD
to bring i t t o a stage of technological readiness than either the
hybrid or adiabatic CAES concepts. Major R&D requirements have been
identified i n the following areas:
feeders for coal and sorbent
fuel distributors
combustor containment
depressurization systems for spent sorbent and ash
control systems for load-following
hot gas cleanup systems
turbomachinery.
The turbomachi nery probl ems for CAES/PFBC are more complex than
f o r the hybrid and adiabatic concepts because of the presence of both
ash and chemical species in the heated a i r . These contaminants provide
deposition, erosion and corrosion problems not experienced in the other
concepts. There i s reason to believe that, with the availability of
sufficient funding, these problems could be solved to permit constructing
a demonstration plant in the l a t t e r part of the 1980s. However, the

amount of funding required would be substantially greater than for hybrid


or adiabatic CAES.
The reassessment of the cycling coal gasifier performed by ENTEC
confirmed the earlier UTRC conclusions that the CAESICG concept using a
cycling gasifier was not technologically viable. However, the prognosis
for the CAESICCG concept appears more favorable. Although the details
of the required research and development to attain technological readiness
were not specifically defined, it appeared that sufficient progress
could be made in ongoing coai gasification process development under
government and private sponsorship to allow the development of the
CAES/CCG concept in the 1990s.

7.0

CONCEPT RELATIONSHIPS TO UTILITY OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

This s e c t i o n summarizes performance and operational f a c t o r s t h a t may


i n f l u e n c e u t i l i t y acceptance o f second-generation CAES technology.

..
.

These

f a c t o r s i n z l ude:
performance parameters
o p e r a b i l i t y as a peaking p l a n t
plant availability
environmental and i n s t i t u t i o n a l considerations.
I n f o r m a t i o n provided i n t h e conceptual design r e p o r t s was used as
t h e p r i n c i p a l basis f o r the discussions t o f o l l o w .

An attempt was made

t o i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t places where s p e c i f i c design choices have unnecessarily


penal ized concepts in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o others.

The G i ramonti and Sadala

study (1979), which provides t h e basis f o r t h e CAES/CG design, was


u n f o r t u n a t e l y concerned p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h CG process screening and d i d
n o t i n c l u d e a p l a n t conceptual design.

Therefore, i t was necessary t o

consider t h i s concept i n somewhat l e s s d e t a i l than the others.


7.1

PERFORMANCE FACTORS
The p r i n c i p a l performance f a c t o r s f o r t h e s u b j e c t second-generation

CAES p l a n t designs a r e given i n Table 7.1.

For comparison, t h i s t a b l e

a l s o includes the approximate performance parameters o f peaking p l a n t s


using competing technologies.

The parameters 1i s t e d a r e r e l a t e d t o

s p e c i f i c s i t e and u t i l i t y f a c t o r s used i n t h e design analyses and should


be used o n l y as an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e general magnitude of the parameters.
Most p l a n t s were designed f o r an 8 hr/8 h r o r 10 hr/lO h r charge/discharge
cycle; however, some v a r i a t i o n e x i s t s because o f machinery and a v a i l a b i l i t y .
Table 7.1 shows t h a t t h e h y b r i d CAES concept uses a l i t t l e more
than 50% o f t h e fuel o f conventional CAES.

The f u e l heat r a t e , 2660 Btu/kWhy

i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t makes very e f f i c i e n t use o f t h e petroleum f u e l .

Its

charging r a t i o o f approximately u n i t y shows t h a t i t can d e l i v e r as much

energy as i t can absorb from the g r i d during charging.

Both t h e CAESICG

and CAES/FBC designs show heat r a t e s comparable t o conventional CAES,


b u t t h e f u e l used i s inexpensive and abundant coal.

However, CAES/FBC

s t i l l depends on a small amount o f premium f u e l s ( o i l o r gas) f o r FBC


preheating and i g n i t i o n .
e t a1

(1980).

The exact amount was n o t q u a n t i f i e d by Giramonti

The a d i a b a t i c CAES design, o f course, uses no f u e l .

I t s o v e r a l l heat r a t e i s , however, the highest o f a l l competing technologies.


The CAESIFBC, CAES/CG and CAESICCG have some very a t t r a c t i v e operating
parameters.

Charging r a t i o s a r e l e s s than u n i t y , i n d i c a t i n g the c a p a b i l i t y

o f d e l i v e r i n g more power than stored during t h e charging segment o f the


cycle.

A c t u a l l y , CAES/CCG does n o t absorb any surplus power from the

u t i l i t y g r i d and i s incapable of system l o a d - l e v e l i n g .

This may be

i n t e r p r e t e d as a disadvantage by a u t i l i t y t h a t has an off- peak a v a i l a b i l i t y


i n inexpensive power.

The f u e l heat r a t e s and o v e r a l l heat r a t e s o f

both CAES/FBC and CAES/CG compare t o conventional techno1ogies; CAES/CG


i s significantly better.

More important, these p l a n t s need n o t depend

on p o t e n t i a l l y scarce petroleum f u e l s .
handling, combustor, e f f l u e n t / f u e l

However, the need f o r f u e l

gas treatment and waste disposal

systems make them a g r e a t deal more complex than o t h e r second-generation


CAES and competing technologies.
OPERABILITY

..

..

O p e r a b i l i t y includes considerations o f :
startup
load - following
shutdown
unpowered t r a n s i e n t
consistency o f these operations w i t h planned peaking operation.
The CAES/CG concept has special problems regarding o p e r a b i l i t y .

Giramonti and Sadala (1 979) r a i s e d serious questions on the capabil it y


o f such a p l a n t f o r frequent startups, shutdowns, and load- following.

They pointed o u t t h a t no g a s i f i e r has been shown t o be operable i n t h i s


manner, and t h e r e a r e no prospects of one being developed/demonstrated
i n t h e foreseeable f u t u r e .

Therefore, a CAES system u t i l i z i n g a c y c l i n g

g a s i f i e r appears unsuitable f o r demonstration i n the near f u t u r e .

The
use o f a continuous g a s i f i e r , on t h e o t h e r hand, appears t o be t e c h n i c a l l y
viable.

However, such a CAESICG p l a n t would n o t s t o r e surplus e l e c t r i c a l

capacity from a g r i d .

I t should be c l a s s i f i e d more as a l o a d - f o l l o w i n g

p l a n t and n o t s t r i c t l y a peaking p l a n t .

S i m i l a r remarks can be made

about a continuous PFBCICAES p l a n t , although such a p l a n t may s t o r e


small amounts of surplus power.
7.2.1

Compression Phase

Startup
I n i t i a l compression mode s t a r t u p a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o r f o l l o w i n g
decompression and cooldown f o r maintenance r e q u i r e s special consideration.
The compressors must be accelerated t o speed before they can be connected
t o the g r i d .

During normal operation, r e s i d u a l a i r i n t h e cavern i s

used t o spin-up t h e compressor by means of a clutched- in t u r b i n e .


For i n i t i a l s t a r t u p o t h e r means must be employed.

..

I n the design studies

various methods were examined f o r t h i s purpose i n c l u d i n g :


mobile high- pressure compressors
i s o l a t e d transmission, back-to-back s t a r t (as employed a t Huntorf)

These methods would be necessitated o n l y i n f r e q u e n t l y and w i l l present


no serious problems.
I n both t h e ACAES and h y b r i d designs, condensation o f t h e moisture i n t h e
a i r can occur i n t h e thermal energy storage u n i t s .

I n the ACAES design,

t h i s condensation w i l l occur i n both TES u n i t s during i n i t i a l s t a r t u p


and o n l y i n t h e high- pressure TES during each compression phase.

The

h y b r i d design experiences condensation o n l y during i n i t i a l s t a r t u p .


P a r t o f the condensate w i l l wet t h e surface o f the TES m a t e r i a l and w i l l
be evaporated as t h e temperature o f the m a t e r i a l r i s e s .

w i l l d r a i n away.

The remainder

T h i s condensation process poses no special problems

w i t h ACAES designs using aquifers o r compensated hard rock caverns f o r


a i r storage.

Special design and operation consideration must be given

t o t h i s process i n ACAES designs using s o l u t i o n mined s a l t c a v i t i e s t o


prevent water from e n t e r i n g t h e s a l t c a v i t y .
Load-Fol l o w i n g
I n p u t power v a r i a t i o n s t o absorb changing g r i d surplus power
a v a i l a b i 1it y can be accommodated through v a r i a b l e p i t c h compressor
s t a r t e r blades o r simply through t h r o t t l i n g .

The lower l i m i t s d i c t a t e d

by compressor i n s t a b i l i t y considerations range from 65 t o 75% o f f u e l


l o a d depending on t h e design.

Information supplied by Giramonti and

Sadala (1 979) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s capabi 1i t y range exceeds expected


u t i l i t y requirements.
7.2.2

Power Production Phase

Startup
Both ACAES and h y b r i d CAES enjoy t h e same r a p i d s t a r t u p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of conventional CAES.

The ACAES would be ready t o accept load i n 15 minutes,

and the h y b r i d design i n l e s s than 12 minutes.

Therefore, both o f these

designs could respond t o both normal system peak demands and t o emergencies
such as l o s s o f a base load p l a n t .

The s t a r t u p o f a CAESIPFBC p l a n t i s

complicated by t h e need t o heat up and i g n i t e the combustors, which


could take hours.

Keeping t h e beds h o t could reduce t h e time required,


b u t t h i s r e q u i r e s complicated operating procedures. Therefore, CAESIPFBC

may have some problems i n meeting unexpected o r emergency peaking s i t u a t i o n s .


Load-Fol 1owi ng_
Adiabatic CAES and h y b r i d CAES p l a n t s have r a p i d l o a d - f o l l o w i n g
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r t o conventional CAES.

Load- fol lowing and p a r t l o a d operation w i t h CAES/FBC i s l e s s f l e x i b l e . Beds must be kept w i t h i n

narrow ranges o f temperature and a i r f l o w v e l o c i t y , l i m i t i n g the amplitude


o f c y c l i n g unless i n d i v i d u a l beds a r e shut down and s t a r t e d up i n response
t o t h e more severe f l u c t u a t i o n s . The speed o f c y c l i n g i s a l s o l i m i t e d .

The heat release i n a bed i s determined by carbon inventory, n o t a i r


flow. Therefore, a i r f l o w r a t e changes do n o t r e s u l t i n an immediate
change i n t h e heat release.
temperature t r a n s i e n t s .
a1

Changes i n l o a d may cause undesirable

However, information provided by Giramonti e t

(1 980) i n d i c a t e s t h a t the r e l a t i v e l y i n f l e x i b l e l o a d - f o l lowing

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f CAES/FBC may be acceptable t o many u t i l i t i e s .


Normal operation o f the concepts w i t h TES u n i t s r e q u i r e s the use o f
special procedures t o keep the heat stored i n these u n i t s commensurate
w i t h the q u a n t i t y o f stored a i r .

If,f o r example, heat i s allowed t o

accumulate i n a TES, thermal breakthrough may occur d u r i n g charging.


Thermal breakthrough occurs when the capacity o f the TES i s exceeded and
uncooled a i r i s discharged from the TES.
cooler i s used t o prevent t h i s occurrence.

I n the h y b r i d design, a t r i m
I n ACAES, thermal breakthrough

i s prevented by occasionally discharging the system completely.

This

requirement i s n o t expected t o s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h the f l e x i b i l i t y


o f operation o f these plants.
Shutdown
The ACAES and h y b r i d CAES designs have no serious problems a f f e c t i n g
t h e c a p a b i l i t y f o r r a p i d shutdown.

The CAES/PFBC design r e q u i r e s t h a t

f l u i d i z i n g a i r be continued a f t e r coal feed s h u t o f f t o burn o u t r e s i d u a l


coal.

This need may tend t o extend load r e d u c t i o n and subsequent shutdown

o f a CAES/PFBC p l a n t .
Unexpected Transients
The unexpected t r a n s i e n t of p r i n c i p a l concern i s t h e sudden l o s s o f
load such as may occur from a transmission f a u l t and t r i p o f t h e p l a n t ' s
main l o a d c i r c u i t breakers.

Following such an event, a i r t o t h e t u r b i n e

must be immediately stopped t o prevent damaging t u r b i n e overspeed conditions.


Control devices a r e a v a i l a b l e t o p r o t e c t t h e turbines.

The sudden l o s s

o f f l o w i s n o t expected t o cause any serious problems w i t h t h e ACAES and


hybrid plants.

P l a n t r e s t a r t can be accomplished promptly f o l l o w i n g

c o r r e c t i o n o f the f a u l t .

This event was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y considered i n

t h e CAES/PFBC analysis, b u t i t appears t h a t the beds may have t o be


dropped onto the support grates t o permit t h e sudden f l o w shutdown.

If

t h i s i s true, the PFBC components would be subject t o damage through


overheating.

R e s t a r t from such an event could take s i g n i f i c a n t time

because o f the need t o r e f l u i d i z e and possibly reheat the beds.

7.3

AVAILABILITY
The estimated a v a i l a b i l i t i e s o f the CAES concepts under consideration

a r e given i n Table 7.2.

The estimated u n i t a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r an ACAES

p l a n t i s somewhat lower than e i t h e r conventional o r h y b r i d p l a n t s because


o f t h e use o f more turbomachinery components i n the design.

More components

were used because o f the p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the equipment


commercially o f f e r e d by the turbomachinery manufacturer p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
the ACAES design study.

I f t h i s design used the same machinery source

as t h e conventional and h y b r i d designs, there i s l i t t l e reason t o expect


t h a t i t s a v a i l a b i i i t y estimate would d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
A v a i l a b i l i t y was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed i n the CAES/CG and
CAESIPFBC reports.

However, i t can be c l e a r l y seen t h a t these p l a n t s

have many more p o t e n t i a l l y troublesome components and systems than the


o t h e r CAES p l a n t concepts.

These include:

coal feed systems


materi a1 transport/pressure 1ock systems (PFBC)
heat exchange systems
cleanup processing systems
s o l i d waste disposal systems.
The magnitude and complexi t y o f these systems suggest a much higher
probabi 1 i t y o f component f a i 1u r e a f f e c t i n g p l a n t re1i a b i 1i t y and avai 1abi 1i t y
than competing ACAES, h y b r i d CAES, o r conventional CAES systems. Therefore,
the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f CAESICG and CAESIPFBC p l a n t s may be lower than t h a t f o r
the ACAES and h y b r i d CAES, and p o s s i b l y be i n the range o f marginal
a c c e p t a b i l i t y f o r u t i 1i t y appl i c a t i o n .

TABLE 7.2.

Compressed A i r Energy Storage P l a n t A v a i l a b i l i t y

Concept

Estimated A v a i l a b i l i t y

Conventional CAES

76

Adiabatic CAES

70

80%

Hybrid CAES

76

86%

CAES/CG

Not Estimated

CAES/PFBC

Not Estimated

7.4

86%

PLANT LIFETIME

A l l second-generation CAES p l a n t s included i n t h i s study were


designed f o r a 25- t o 30-year l i f e t i m e ,

which i s w i t h i n the normally

expected range f o r power production equipment.

The a i r storage caverns

may never "wear out" , making p o s s i b l e several generations o f peaking


plants a t the s i t e .

The l a t e r generations would i n v o l v e considerably

l e s s c a p i t a l costs because o f the nonrecurring cavern- related costs.


The time between r e q u i r e d overhauls o f the turbomachinery conlponents
depends on t h e amount and type of a i r contaminants.
CAES concepts have some contaminants present.

A l l second-generation

Both ACAES and h y b r i d

designs have p a r t i c u l a t e contamination from comminution o f the TES beds


included i n t h e designs.

Separators were included i n the designs t o

remove t h f s TES d e t r i t u s and t o prolong t u r b i n e blade l i f e t o p o t e n t i a l l y


acceptable periods.

The CAES/CG and CAES/PFBC p l a n t s could have problems

w i t h both p a r t i c u l a t e s and chemical species i n t h e combustor e f f l u e n t


t h a t could cause corrosion, erosion, and f o u l i n g o f t u r b i n e components.
Systems were included i n t h e designs t o ameliorate these p o t e n t i a l
problems t o t h e maximum f e a s i b l e extent.

However, recent r e s u l t s of

PFBC p i l o t p l a n t experiments i n Great B r i t i a n i n d i c a t e t h a t , w i t h o n l y


o r d i n a r y separators, t u r b i n e damage problems from PFBC e f f l u e n t can be
he1d be1ow acceptable 1eve1 s.

The comminution of the TES beds that causes particulate problems


for the ACAES and hybrid CAES designs also may cause the slow deterioration
of the TES Beds through plugging. The r a t e a t which comminution proceeds
i s currently unknown for candidate TES materials, and the need for
periodic replacement of these materials was considered in the design
reports. The replacement of these TES materials would require prolonged
shutdowns and high costs, impacting b o t h power costs and u t i l i t y operational
convenience. Satisfactory, long-life materials must s t i l l be identified.

7.5

ENVIRONMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Environmental and institutional matters of principal concern during


CAES plant construction and operation include:
noise
a i r emissions
solid waste disposal
safety
aesthetics
surface water inipact
economics and demographics.
These matters were analyzed in various depths in the design reports
and, where necessary, engineered systems were i ncl uded to meet specific
anticipated problems. No general areas of concern were identified where
judicious s i t e selection and appropriate ~ngineeringcould not be adequately
addressed.

7.6

DISCUSSION

Neither hybrid CAES nor ACAES plant design appears t o have significant
operational problems that would preclude u t i l i t y acceptance. Perhaps
the hybrid design might be perceived as a superior concept by a u t i l i t y
forecasting the a v a i l a b i l i t y of sufficient fuel o i l because of i t s
a t t r a c t i v e heat r a t e and near-uni ty charging r a t i o . On the other hand,
i f petroleum fuels become essentially unavailable, ACAES may appear mo7e
a t t r a c t i v e because of i t s total nondependence on such fuel, despite

i t s h i g h e r charging r a t i o and o v e r a l l heat r a t e .

The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t

o p e r a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g these two concepts remains t h e l i f e t i m e


o f TES m a t e r i a l s and t h e associated r e q u i r e d replacement i n t e r v a l .
The CAESIPFBC design appears t o possess both a t t r a c t i v e performance
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and almost no dependence on petroleum fuels.

However,

i t s o p e r a t i o n a l f l e x i b i 1 ity, convenience, and avai l a b i 1 it y appear t o be


somewhat l e s s than those of t h e ACAES and h y b r i d designs.

Furthermore,

no PFBC systems o f e q u i v a l e n t s i z e a r e c u r r e n t l y i n use i n power p r o d u c t i o n


t o demonstrate t h a t p o t e n t i a l PFBC-?elated o p e r a t i o n a l problems can be
c o n v e n i e n t l y overcome.

Therefore, i t does n o t seem l i k e l y t h a t u t i l i t i e s

i n t e r e s t e d i n CAES i n t h e near f u t u r e would f e e l comfortable w i t h t h e


CAESIPFBC concept.

As PFBC technology advances t o t h e p o i n t a t which some

confidence i s developed i n t h e o p e r a b i l i t y o f l a r g e - s c a l e systems, i t


may make an a t t r a c t i v e candidate f o r l a t e r adoption as a CAES heat
source.
The c y c l i n g coal g a s i f i e r technology does n o t appear s u f f i c i e n t l y
advanced t o design an o p e r a t i o n a l l y acceptable CAES p l a n t .

Therefore,

t h e CAESICG concept i s n o t judged t o be an o p e r a t i o n a l l y v i a b l e concept.


The c o n t i n u o u s - f i r e d CAESIPFBC and CAESICG concepts absorb r e l a t i v e l y
l i t t l e o r no s u r p l u s power from t h e u t i l i t y g r i d and, t h e r e f o r e , supply
l i t t l e o r no l o a d - l e v e l i n g c a p a b i l i t y .

Study t o d a t e has been l a r g e l y

r e s t r i c t e d t o concepts t h a t o f f e r l o a d - l e v e l i n g c a p a b i l i t y using charge


energy from e x i s t i n g generating c a p a c i t y .

C o n t i n u o u s - f i r e d CAESIFBC and

CAESICG concepts may o f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t advantages over a d i a b a t i c o r


h y b r i d CAES concepts by t a k i n g advantage o f a l a t e n t synergism o f u s i n g
pressurized a i r .

However, such concepts mark a s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e

from conventional thought on c e n t r a l s t a t i o n storage and wi 11 r e q u i r e


a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s b e f o r e being considered f o r a d d i t i o n a l DOE-funded
devel opment

REFERENCES
Acres American, I n c . 1980. P r e l i m i n a r y Design Study o f Underground Pumped
Hydro and Compressed A i r Energy Storage i n Hard Rock, Volume X I . P l a n t
UPH. B u f f a l o , New York.
Design

Barrangerd, S. M., and G. L. Campbell. 1980. Analysis o f t h e Need f o r


I n t e r m e d i a t e and Peaking Technologies i n t h e Year 2000. DOE/RA/2999-01
Design Focus, Inc., Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a .
E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e .
A1 t o , C a l i f o r n i a .

1979.

Technical Assessment Guide.

Palo

Giramonti, A. J., R. D. Lessard, D. Merrick, and M. J. Hobson. 1980.


Technical and Economic Assessment o f F l u i d i z e d Bed Augmented Compressed A i r
Energy Storage. Vol. 1-3, U n i t e d Technologies Research Center, East
H a r t f o r d , Connecticut.
Giramonti, A. J. and R. L. Sadala. 1979. Concept Screening o f Coal
G a s i f i c a t i o n Systems. U n i t e d Technologies Research Center, East H a r t f o r d ,
Connecticut.
Hobson, M. J. 1981. Conceptual Design and Engineering Studies o f A d i a b a t i c
CAES w i t h Thermal Energy Storage. Acres American, I n c . , Columbia, Maryland.
K a r a l i s , A. J., and Z. S. Stys. 1981. P r e l i m i n a r y Engineering Design and
Cost o f Advanced Compressed A i r Storage (ACAS) A-5 Hybrid. United Engineers
& Constructors, Phi 1adelphia , Pennsylvania and Brown Boveri Corporation,
North Brunswi ck, New Jersey.
Pecora, A. G. 1980. P r e l i m i n a r y Design Study o f Underground Pumped Hydro and
Compressed A i r Energy Storage i n Hard Rock, Volume X I I . P l a n t Design - CAES.
Acres American, Inc., Buffalo, New York.
Phung, D. L. 1978. A Method f o r E s t i m a t i n g E s c a l a t i o n and I n t e r e s t Rates
During Construction. I n s t i t u t e f o r Energy Analysis, Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a .

DISTRIBUTION
No o f
Copies

No o f
Copies

OFFSITE
US Department of Energy
Attn: R.A. Dunlop
D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c Energy Sys.
12 & Pennsylvania
Washington, DC 20585
5

US Department o f Energy
Attn: I. Gyuk
O f f i c e o f Energy Systems Res.
F o r r e s t a l Bui 1ding, CE-142
1000 Independence Ave. , S W .
Washington, DC 20585

US Department o f Energy
A t t n : R. Shivers
O f f i c e o f Energy Systems Res.
F o r r e s t a l B u i l d i n g , CE-142
1000 Independence Ave. , S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
US Department o f Energy
A t t n : J.H. Swisher
O f f i c e o f Energy Systems Res.
F o r r e s t a l Building, CE-142
1000 Independence Ave. , S W.
Washington, DC 20585

27

DOE Technical Information


Center
Acres American Inc.
A t t n : M.J. Hobson
The Clark B u i l d i n g
S u i t e 329
Columbia, MD 21044
Acres American Inc.
A t t n : D. W i l l e t t
L i b e r t y Bank Bui 1d i n g
Main a t Court
B u f f a l o , NY 14202

Central I 11i n o i s Pub1i c Service Co.


A t t n : A.H. Warnke
Vice Presi dent Power Supply
607 East Adams S t r e e t
S p r i n g f i e l d , I L 62701
Commonweal t h Edi son Co.
Attn: T.J. Maiman
Sta. Mech. Engr. Dept. Mgr.
36 FN West
PO Box 767
Chicago, I L 60690
E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e
A t t n : Jim B i r k
341 2 Hi 11view Avenue
PO Box 10412
Pal o A1 t o , CA 94303
E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e
Attn: R.B. Schainker
341 2 H i 11view Avenue
PO Box 10412
Pal o A1 t o , CA 94303
Harza Engineering Company
A t t n : A.H. Barber
D i r e c t o r o f Marketing
150 S. Wacker D r i v e
Chicago, I L 60606
I 11 in o i s Power Company
Attn: M r . G.E. Huck
Manager o f Planning
500 South 27th S t .
Decatur, I L 62525
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
A t t n : Jesse Yow
PO Box 808
Mail Stop L-202
Livermore, CA 94550
Lawrence L i vermore Laboratory
A t t n : Tech. I n f o . Dept., L-3
University o f California
PO Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550

No o f
Copies

No o f
Copies

Louisiana State U n i v e r s i t y
Attn: R.L. Thoms
I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental Studies
Room 42, Atkinson Hal 1
Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Sandia Laboratories
A t t n : W i l l i a m G. Wilson
PO Box 969
Organization 8453
Livermore, CA 94550

Marchwood Engineering Labs


A t t n : I. Glendenning
Head o f Long-Term Studies
Southampton, England

Sandi a Laboratories
A t t n : R.O. Woods
Organization 471 5
A1buquerque , NM 8711 5

Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e o f Tech.
Northern Research & Eng. Corp.
A t t n : J e r r y 0. Melconian
39 Olympia Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801

Sargent and Lundy Engineers


A t t n : M r . W.C. Walke
P r o j e c t Manager
55 East Monroe S t r e e t
Chicago, I L 60603

Middle South Services


A t t n : L.A. Wilson
Advanced Energy Program Section
Box 6100
New Orleans, LA 70161

Soy1and Power Cooperative , IHc.


Attn: Richard Ruzich
PO Box A1606
Decatur, I L 62525

National Science Foundation


D i v i s i on o f Advanced Energy
Research and Techno1ogy
Room 1140
1800 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20550
Potomac E l e c t r i c Power Co
A t t n : P.E. Schaub
1900 Pennsyl vani a Avenue
Washington, DC 20006
Pub1i c Service o f Indiana
A t t n : T. W. McCafferty
1000 E Main S t r e e t
P l a i n f i e l d , IN 46168
REISPEC Inc.
Attn: A.F. Fossum
PO Box 725
Rapid C i t y , SD 57701

Tennessee Val 1ey A u t h o r i t y


A t t n : Arnold Betbeze
1150 Chestnut, Tower 2
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Tennesse Val l e y A u t h o r i t y
Energy Research Section
1360 Commerce Union Bank Bldg
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Union E l e c t r i c Co.
Attn: E.M. Mabuce
Manager - Applied Research
Corporate Planning Dept.
PO Box 149
S t . Louis, MO 63166
U n i v e r s i t y o f Massdchusetts
A t t n : O.C. Farquhar
Dept. o f Geology & Geography
Morri 11 Science Center
Amherst, MA 01003

No o f
Copies
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan
A t t n : Donald L. Katz
Dept. o f Chemical Engineering
2042 E. Engr. Bldg.
Ann Arbor, M I 48109
Westinghouse E l e c t r i c Corp.
A t t n : W.F. Kobett
CAES P r o j e c t Manager
Corr~bustionTurbine Sys. Div.
Long Range Develop-Lab 100
PO Box 251
Concordvi 11e, PA 19331
ONSITE
DOE Richland Operations O f f i c e
H. E. Ranson/D .R.

Segna

P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory
L.D. Kannberg (15)
R.W. R e i l l y ( 5 )
F.R. Zaloudek ( 5 )
Technical Information ( 5 )
Pub1i s h i n g Coordination ( 2 )