Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 November 2007
Received in revised form 4 July
2008 Accepted 27 January 2009
Available online 5 March 2009
Keywords:
CAES
Compressed air energy
storage Energy system
analysis Electricity market
optimisation
a b s t r a c t
Future sustainable energy systems call for the introduction of integrated storage
technologies. One of these technologies is compressed air energy storage (CAES). In Denmark
at present, wind power meets 20% and combined heat and power production (CHP) meets 50%
of the electricity demand. Based on these gures, the paper assesses the value of integrating
CAES into future sustainable energy systems with even higher shares of uctuating renewable
energy sources. The evaluation is made on the basis of detailed energy system analyses in
which the supply of complete national energy systems is calculated hour by hour in relation to
the demands during a year. The Danish case is evaluated in a system-economic per- spective
by comparing the economic benets achieved by improving the integration of wind power to
the costs of the CAES technology. The result is compared to various other storage options.
Furthermore, a business-economic evaluation is done by calculating the potential income of the
CAES technology from both spot markets and regulating power markets. The evaluation
includes both historical hour by hour prices during a 7-year period on the Nordic Nord Pool
market as well as expected future price variations. The conclusion is that even in energy
systems with very high shares of wind power and CHP, neither the historical nor the expected
future price variations on the spot market alone can justify the investment in CAES systems.
Other storage technology options are signicantly more feasible. CAES may operate both on
the spot market and the regulating power market, which indicates potential feasibility.
However, such strategy is highly risky because of the small extent of the regulating power
market and if CAES is to become feasible it will depend on incomes from auxiliary services.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
1. Introduction
Substantiated by issues of energy security, climate
change, as well as uctuating and rising oil prices, many
countries around the world lead an energy policy focussing
on energy efciency and increasing the share of renewable
energy sources (RES) [1,2]. In some countries and regions,
e.g. in the EU, these policies also in- volve increasing the
share of combined heat and power (CHP) [3]. Such energy
policies lead to the challenge of balancing electricity supply
and demand. With a wind power production meeting 20%
and a CHP share meeting 50% of the electricity demand,
Denmark is one of the front runners in facing such problems.
So far, Denmark has already faced excess electricity
production problems. Various technological options have
been
analysed and several measures have been
implemented including changes in the regulation of distributed CHP plants [4,5]. The different technological
options in question include electric boilers and heat pumps
[6,7], exible de- mands, electricity for transportation [8],
reorganisation of energy
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 9635 8309; fax: +45 9815 3788.
E-mail address: Lund@plan.aau.dk (H. Lund).
feasibility of
system in
an
advanced
adiabatic
CAES
(AA-CAES)
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.01.032
11
2. Methodology
The evaluation of CAES plants in relation to the system
integra- tion of wind power requires a combination of
detailed hour by hour simulations and feasibility studies.
Such combination can be achieved by using the
EnergyPLAN computer model, which has been applied here
[23,24]. The EnergyPLAN model is a general en- ergy system
analysis tool designed for analysing regional or na- tional
energy systems. It is an inputoutput model, which uses
data on capacities and efciencies of the energy systems
conver- sion units as well as the availability of fuels and
renewable energy inputs. Hour by hour it calculates how the
electricity and heat de- mands of the complete system will
be met under the given con- straints and regulation
strategies. In such analyses, the model refers to a database
of wind power hour distributions based on ac- tual historical
productions from Danish wind turbines. Fig. 1 gives an
impression of the functioning of the model. It is seen how it
fo- cuses on the electrical system but also incorporates
other parts of the system which interact with it.
As a result of the calculation, detailed knowledge is
created on the production of the different units. From this,
fuel consumption and xed and variable operation costs can
be calculated and, sub- sequently, the system-economic
costs and CO2 emissions caused by meeting the demands
of society can be found. The model has previously been
used in a number of energy system analysis activ- ities,
including expert committee work for the Danish Authorities
[25] and the design of 100% renewable energy systems
[26]. The present version 7.0 of the EnergyPLAN model
including documen- tation can be downloaded for free from
the following home page: www.EnergyPLAN.eu.
In general, the EnergyPLAN model has a focus on
system analy- sis, i.e. the analysis of national or regional
energy systems. How- ever, the model also facilitates the
business-economic analysis of individual plants in the case
of electricity storage systems with a special focus on CAES
plants. The methodology used for identifying the optimal
operation strategy is carefully described in [24,27]. The
11
Fig. 2. CAES plant technical inputs in the EnergyPLAN energy system analysis model.
Technology
Description
Annual
investment and
xed operation
costs (interest
3%)
CAES
MW
14 million EUR/year
Table 1
Technical and economic data of the CAES plant [27].
Compressor
Capacity
MW Efciency
216
0.6843
Storage
Capacity
1478 MWh
Turbine
Capacity
MW Efciency
Fuel Ratio
360
2.4357
1.1556
Investment
Costs
Operation costs
182
Million
EUR
Lifetime
30
years Interest rate (real)
3%
Fixed costs
4.7
Million
EUR/year
Variable compressor 2.27
EUR/MWh Variable turbine
Consumptio
n
(compresso
r)
Production (turbine)
EUR/MWh
m
i
l
l
2.00
EUR/MWh
0.53
Upward (monthly)
3330 EUR/MW
Downwar
d
(monthly)
1070
EUR/MW
Lifetime = 20 years
Operation costs = 6%
Efciencies:
Electrolyser + storage: 0.72
Fuel cell: 0.56
Total: 0.4
EUR/MWh
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
344 687 1030 1373 1716 2059 2402 2745 3088 3431 3774 4117 4460 4803 5146 5489 5832 6175 6518 6861 7204 7547 7890 8233
8576
Hours
Fig. 3. Nord Pool spot market prices in year 2004.
Table 3
Natural gas and electricity market prices.
Year
2000 2.95
2001 3.85
2002 3.22
2003 3.38
2004 3.27
As seen
from
2005
4.45
2006 5.69
marginal.
2030
a
6.49
a
the diagram,
is
Duration Curves for Danish energy system year 2030 with 59 percent wind
power CAES plant: 360 MW turbine, 216 MW compressor, 1478 MWh
storage
6000
5000
MW
4000
3000
2000
Pow er
plant
Turbine
Compressor
Excess
1000
0
1
477 953 1429 1905 2381 2857 3333 3809 4285 4761 5237 5713 6189 6665 7141 7617 8093 8569
hours
Million EUR/year
Fig. 4. Duration curves of power plant and excess electricity productions compared to CAES turbine and compressor contributions.
40$/barr
10
68$/barr
96$/barr
0
0 EUR/MWh
13 EUR/MWh
27EUR/M/Wh
-5
Fig. 5. Net operational income of a CAES plant in the Danish year 2030 energy system compared to the annual investment and xed operation cost of 14
million EUR/year (shown by the dotted line).
the
excess
Fig. 6. Savings of CAES compared to other alternative investments all with the same annual investment and xed operation costs of 14 million EUR/year
(marked by the dotted line).
Expenditures
Income (optainable)
Indcome (Optimal)
Million EUR/year
Million EUR/year
20
15
10
20
15
10
0
2000
2001
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
2000-2006
2030 (NP)
2030 (EEX)
Fig. 7. Annual net operational income and xed expenditures when operating on the electricity spot market.
Expenditures
Income (excl. Monthly)
Million EUR/year
Million EUR/year
20
15
10
15
10
20
2000
2001
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
2000-2006
2030 (NP)
Fig. 8. Annual net operational income and xed expenditures when operating on the electricity spot market in combination with the regulating power
market.
[4]
[22] Swider DJ. Compressed air energy storage in an electricity system with
signicant wind power generation. IEEE Trans Energy Convers
2007;22(1):95102.
[23] Lund H, Mnster E. Modelling of energy systems with a high
percentage of CHP and wind power. Renew Energy 2003;28(14):2179
93.
[24] Lund H. EnergyPLAN advanced energy system analysis model.
Denmark: Aalborg University; 2007. <www.energyPLAN.eu>.
[25] Lund H, Mnster E. Management of surplus electricity-production
from a uctuating renewable-energy source. Appl Energy 2003;76(1
3):6574.
[26] Lund H. Renewable energy strategies for sustainable development.
Energy 2007;32(6):9129.
[27] Lund H, Salgi G, Elmegaard B, Andersen AN. Optimal operation
strategies of compressed air energy storage (CAES) on electricity spot
markets with uctuating prices. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(59):799806.
[28] Crotogino K, Mohmeyer K, Scharf R. Huntoft CAES/more than 20 years of
successful operation. SMRI Spring meeting; 2001.