Comparative Economic Analysis of Several CAES Design Studies

摘要

Economic and design assumptions are standardized for six Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) designs employing different CAES technologies. The technologies investigated are conventional, hybrid, and adiabatic CAES, and CAES coupled to fluidized bed combustion and coal gasification units. A comparison is made of the economic performance of these designs (technologies) under several sets of economic assumptions and in the 7.5 to 25% capacity factor range. Comparisons are also made against combustion turbines, oil-fired combined cycle plants, and underground pumped hydro storage (UPHS). The results indicate that adiabatic CAES has the greatest potential for cost-effective energy storage. It is the most economic technology in all cases at a low compression energy cost (10 mills/kWh), at a high compression energy cost under a high fuel-oil price escalation rate (25 mills/kWh, 10% fuel escalation rate), and under a high compression energy cost and municipal financing (25 mills/kWh and 8% cost of capital).