Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Simulation and analysis of different adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage

plant configurations
Niklas Hartmann ⇑, O. Vöhringer, C. Kruck, L. Eltrop
University of Stuttgart, Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER), Heßbrühlstr. 49a, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the efficiency of one full charging and discharging cycle of several adiabatic Compressed Air
Received 19 January 2011 Energy Storage (CAES) configurations are analyzed with the help of an energy balance. In the second step
Received in revised form 28 November 2011 main driving factors for the efficiency of the CAES configurations are examined with the help of sensitiv-
Accepted 1 December 2011
ity analysis.
Available online 27 December 2011
The results show that the efficiency of the polytropic configuration is about 60%, which is considerable
lower than literature values of an adiabatic CAES of about 70%. The high value of 70% is only reached for
Keywords:
the isentropic (ideal) configuration. Key element to improve the efficiency is to develop high temperature
Adiabate
Compressed Air Energy
thermal storages (>600 °C) and temperature resistant materials for compressors. The highest efficiency is
Storage delivered by the two-stage adiabatic CAES configuration. In this case the efficiency varies between 52%
Simulation model and 62%, depending on the cooling and heating demand. If the cooling is achieved by natural sources
Efficiency (such as a river), a realistic estimation of the efficiency of adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storages
CAES (without any greenhouse gas emissions due to fuel consumption) is about 60%.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction CAES plants are in operation (Huntorf, Germany and McIntosh,

Wind and solar power is deployed on a massive scale world-
wide. To compensate for the fluctuating character of this renew-
able electricity generation storage facilities such as pumped
hydro – a typical solution so far – is required. However, for many
countries the potential to build new pumped hydro power plants
is low. Compressed Air Energy Storage systems have a large poten-
tial to compensate for the fluctuating nature of renewable energies.
Energy storage hereby is performed by compressed air in caverns.
These caverns can either be drilled in salt and rock formations or
already existing cavities such as in aquifer strata.
There are two different types of Compressed Air Energy Storage
systems, diabatic and adiabatic CAES. In case of the diabatic CAES
plant a working fluid (typically ambient air) is compressed and
stored in an underground cavern. The thermal energy, which re-
sults from the compression process, needs to be dissipated to avoid
deterioration of the cavern. During discharging, due to the heat loss
in the process and to avoid freezing of the turbine, natural gas is
injected in the combustion chamber of the turbine during the dis-
charging process. The adiabatic CAES stores the thermal energy
after the compression in a thermal storage and the compressed
gas in an underground cavern. During discharging process the
compressed air is heated by heat transfer out of the thermal
storage. The addition of natural gas can be neglected. Two diabatic
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 (0)711 68587922; fax: +49 (0)711 68587883.
E-mail address: nh@ier.uni-stuttgart.de (N. Hartmann).
United States) but no adiabatic CAES plant was built so far. The
input–output electricity efficiency of the diabatic CAES in Huntorf
is documented to reach about 46% [1,2]. The diabatic CAES in
McIntosh, which includes a recuperation process, reaches about
54% [2,3]. It is generally accepted, that adiabatic CAES plants will
reach an efficiency of about 70% [4–6].
In several studies, adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage sys-
tems have been described generally [3,7,8]. General technology
overviews and comparison to other storage technologies were pub-
lished in numerous studies (e.g. [9–13]). The existing CAES plants
were analyzed in [14,15] and first economic assessments were car-
ried out in [16,17]. CAES in combination with renewable energy
sources as well as in an electricity system was the focus of several
studies. The operation of CAES in an energy system was published
in [18] and the operation of an electricity system including CAES in
[19]. The optimal operation of a CAES to react on spot market
prices was the focus of [20]. A combination of wind power with
CAES was analyzed in [21–23] and the competition between a
CAES and gas power plant in [24].
Other studies focus on the development of different compo-
nents. In [25] the heat recovery and thereby resulting energy
recovery efficiency is calculated (g = 0.72), using different combi-
nations of in parallel and series connected compression stages
and heat reservoirs.
However a general analysis of the efficiency of different Com-
pressed Air Energy Storage configurations is missing in literature.
Therefore the goal of this paper is to develop, simulate and analyze

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.007
542 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548

Nomenclature

c configuration including energy demand for heating/ Greek letters

cooling g efficiency
cp constant pressure specific heat capacity (J/kg K) D difference, interval
D diameter (m) c specific heat ratio, isentropic coefficient
h specific enthalpy (J/kg) p pressure ratio
H height (m)
L length (m) Subscripts
m_ mass-flow (kg/s) air dry air, ideal gas
n polytropic exponent c, compr compressor
p pressure (Pa, bar) el electric
P power (J/s) G generator
Q heat, thermal energy (J) i ideal, isentropic
Q_ heat transfer rate (J/s) M motor
RA individual gas constant for dry air (J/kg K) max maximum
s specific entropy (J/kg K) min minimum
t time (s) p polytropic change of state
T temperature (K) s isentropic change of state
v specific volume (m3/kg) TES thermal energy storage
V volume (m3) t, turbine turbine
w specific work (J/kg)

different configurations of an adiabatic Compressed Air Energy  Configuration I: single-stage turbo machinery components and
Storage system. The different concepts are: polytropic processes combined with polytropic efficiencies
from literature data are modeled to obtain realistic values.
 one-stage polytropic CAES, Motor and generator efficiencies are included.
 two-stage polytropic CAES,  Configuration II: double-stage compressor module is modeled
 three-stage polytropic CAES, (cf. Fig. 2 without the third compressor (c3) and the third heat
 isentropic CAES. exchanger).
 Configuration III: triple-stage compressor including heat
The results are analyzed by means of an energy balance with re- exchangers is modeled (cf. Fig. 2).
spect to their internal status and the efficiency of the storage for  Configuration IV: single-stage turbo machinery modules and
one charging and discharging cycle. isentropic compression/expansion processes are modeled.
Motor and generator modules are ideal components, without
energy losses.
2. The adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage

The TES and cavern modules are designed similarly for all con-
The general configuration of a Compressed Air Energy Storage
figurations. Suffix ‘‘c’’ was assigned to each configuration number
system consists of four main components: compressor, turbine,
to indicate the intercooling and aftercooling demand which was
storage (thermal and air) and motor/generator (Fig. 1). During
considered for the efficiency calculation.
charging process electricity powers the motor (M), which drives
the compressor (c). Ambient air is used as working fluid. After
2.1.1. Compressor-module
compression a heat exchanger regulates the hot air’s temperature
In configuration I, the energy demand for the specific compres-
to a defined level. In the next state the thermal energy storage
sion work results from an isentropic compression process (adia-
(TES) absorbs almost all thermal energy. Afterwards the cooled
batic and reversible). Applying isentropic compression to the first
compressed air is pumped into an underground cavern. The charg-
law of thermodynamics, results in:
ing stops when the cavern pressure reaches its maximum value. In
Z 2s
case of discharging the compressed air flows through the TES to re-
heat. Finally it expands in the turbine (t), which drives a generator hðtÞ12s ¼ wðtÞ12s ¼ v ðt; pÞdp ð1Þ
1
(G) to produce electrical power output. The adiabatic Compressed
Air Energy Storage model was developed and tested in Matlab/Sim-
ulink. The change of state of the CAES plant is hereby modeled as
.

an isentropic/polytropic compression (1–2), isobaric heating/cool- Q23

ing (2–3), isobaric cooling (3–4), isobaric heating (4–5) and isen-
2 3
tropic/polytropic expansion (5–6).
1 5
P56
2.1. Configurations of the Compressed Air Energy Storage TES
M c t G
4
The objective of the model is to compare adiabatic CAES plant
P12 6
efficiencies according to different standard cycles including cavern
machine efficiencies as well as varying turbo machine stages. The
different adiabatic CAES configurations are divided into configura- Fig. 1. Basic model of an adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage including the
tions I–IV: change of state.
 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548 543

2.1.2. Motor/generator-module

.
.

.
Q21‘ Q2‘1‘‘ Q2‘‘3
Constants for efficiency gM and gG increase power consumption
2 2‘ 2‘‘
and decrease power generation (omitted in the isentropic configu-
1‘ 1‘‘ 3
ration). Total consumed power from Eq. (11) increases to
1
1
PðtÞmotor ¼ ðP12 þ P10 20 þ PðtÞ100 200 Þ þ jQ_ ðtÞ210 j þ jQ_ ðtÞ20 100 j
gM
M c1 c2 c3 þ jQ_ ðtÞ200 3 j ð12Þ
and total generated power equals:
P12 P1‘2‘ P1‘‘2‘‘
PðtÞgenerator ¼ gG PðtÞ56 : ð13Þ
Fig. 2. Compressor design of configuration III; three-stage compressor module with
heat exchangers.
2.1.3. TES and cavern-module
The TES cools down the passing air flow to a lower temperature
and stores the thermal energy in its massive body. The thermal en-
To calculate the specific work as a function of pressure ratio, the
ergy is hereby calculated according to Eq. (14). The term
isentropic law, the ideal gas equation in combination with Eq. (1)
(T3  20 K) is required to keep QTES in balance:
is used: Z Z
Pv c ¼ const: pv ¼ RA T ð2 þ 3Þ Q 34 ¼ Q_ ðtÞ34 dt ¼ _ air cp ½ðT 4  ðT 3  20 KÞÞdt
mðtÞ ð14Þ
" ðc1Þ #
c pðtÞ2s c The compressed air is stored in the cavern. During discharge oper-
hðtÞ12s ¼ RA T 1 1 ð4Þ ation airflow from the cavern passes the TES, is heated and expands
c1 p1
through the turbine to perform work. The TES is modeled as a sim-
Using Eq. (2+3), the outlet temperature after compression results in: ple and ideal module but with a charging/discharging temperature
 c1 difference of 20 K.
pðtÞ2s c Z Z
TðtÞ2s ¼ T 1 ð5Þ
p1 Q 45 ¼ Q_ ðtÞ45 dt ¼ _ air cp ðT 5  T 4 Þdt
mðtÞ ð15Þ
The product of the specific work with the air mass flow results in
the compression power: The cavern is an adiabate leak-proof underground mass storage for
_ air hðtÞ12s compressed air. It uses the ideal gas equation to calculate actual
PðtÞ12s ¼ mðtÞ ð6Þ
pressure inside.
If the compression work is calculated with polytropic process, the R
governing equation is received by combining the second law of _ air dtRA T 4
mðtÞ
p4 ¼ ð16Þ
thermodynamics and polytropic efficiency (refer to Eq. (24)). V cav ern
v dp v dp
dh ¼ Tds þ v dp gcompr ¼ ¼ ð7 þ 8Þ 2.1.4. Turbine-module
Tds þ v dp dh
The turbine is designed as a reversible adiabatic air turbine. For
Using Eq. (8), the change in specific enthalpy including entropy loss the polytropic as well as for the isentropic case the expansion rep-
equals: resents an opposed thermodynamic process of the compression.
2 3
Z 2p  ðn1Þ Therefore power generation including efficiency equals:
1 1 n pðtÞ2p n
hðtÞ12p ¼ v ðt;pÞdp ¼ R T 4  15 2 3
gcompr 1 gcompr n  1 A 1 p1
n
 ðn1Þ
pðtÞ6p n
PðtÞ56 _ air gturbine
¼ mðtÞ RA T s 4  15 ð17Þ
ð9Þ n1 p5

The isentropic process represents a special case of the polytropic

The polytropic efficiency of a turbine is defined as:
process. Therefore the heat capacity ratio is replaced by the poly-
tropic index. The power consumption P12p including mass-flow is 1 dh
analogous to Eq. (6). gturbine ¼ ¼ ð18Þ
gcompr v dp
Subsequent to the compressor an ideal isobaric heat exchanger
which controls the temperature of the compressed air flow in order And the temperature decrease according to polytropic law:
to meet TES temperature restrictions is modeled. Hence, tempera-
ture T3 is fixed and depending on the compressor output tempera-  n1
pðtÞ6p n
ture, the air flow has to be cooled or heated. Positive value of P23 TðtÞ6p ¼ T 5 ð19Þ
ps
displays a power demand for heating and vice versa. For simplifica-
tion, heat transfer rate equals the electric power: In case of isentropic change of state the polytropic index n is re-
placed by the heat capacity ratio c (refer to Eq. (5)).The heat capac-
Q_ ðtÞ23 ¼ P23 ¼ mðtÞ
_ air cp ðT 3  TðtÞ2 Þ ð10Þ ity ratio c is calculated using the gas constant for air, RA = 287.06 J/
Concerning multiple-stage configurations (IIIc and IVc), Eqs. (5) and kg K, and an averaged constant pressure heat capacity, cp = 1059.7 J/
(9) are applied in sequence. Power consumed during the charging kg K.
cycle is summed to: cp
c¼ ¼ 1:37 ð20Þ
c p  RA
PðtÞcharging ¼ P12 þ jQ_ ðtÞ021 j þ P01 20 þ jQ_ ðtÞ02 100 j þ PðtÞ001 200 þ jQðtÞ
_ 00 3j
2
The polytropic exponent was calculated by using the polytropic law
ð11Þ
and the isentropic efficiencies from literature data.
544 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548

" #
 ðc1Þ second compression stage with a centrifugal compressor. Similarly,
c ðpðtÞÞ2s c  c1
c1 RA T 1 1 p2 c
p1 1 in configuration III, the first and second compressor reaches a con-
v dp P1
gcompr;s ¼ ¼ ¼ stant pressure ratio of p = 6 and the third compresses to the re-
dh cp ðT 2  T 1 Þ ðTT 21 Þ  1 quired compression for the storage cavern.
1 The heat capacity ratio c is calculated by using the gas constant
¼ ð21Þ for air, RA = 287.06 J/kg K, and an averaged constant pressure heat
gturbine;s
capacity, cp = 1059.7 J/kg K.
In combination with the polytropic law (Eq. (19)) the polytropic
cp
exponent can be calculated depending on the isentropic efficiency, c¼ ¼ 1:37 ð24Þ
c p  RA
pressure ratio and heat capacity ratio:
1 The polytropic exponent was calculated by using the polytropic law
n¼ 0 !!1 ð22Þ and turbo machinery efficiencies.
 c1
c
p2
Blog 1þg 1
p1 1 C
B compr;s
C 2.2.2. TES and cavern-module
1B
B
  C
C
@ log
p2
p1 A The temperature of the thermal storage is limited to T3. It is ex-
pected, that for large thermal storage applications such as in a
CAES plant, mainly sensible heat storages, with materials such as
To obtain the polytropic efficiency Eq. (23) is used [26]: salt or concrete, are used. Storing thermal energy is therefore lim-
ited to temperatures of about 900 K [32] with a capacity range of
n c1 1
gcompr ¼  ¼ ð23Þ 100–2400 MWhth. Because inlet and outlet temperatures of the
n1 c gturbine
TES are fixed the thermal energy is used as a level indicator. Con-
sidering an ideal TES being adiabatic it would not affect the ther-
2.2. Model characteristics and parameters modynamic equations. The efficiency of the TES is about 97.7%
assuming equal in- and outlet values for pressure and mass-flow.
In Table 1 an overview of modules, changes of state, parameters The cavern is mined into a salt structure with the volume V,
and variables of the storage plant (cf. Fig. 1) is shown. Variables are geometrical dimensions length L, diameter D and height H (cf. Ta-
time dependent and therefore indicated by ‘‘(t)’’. ble 2). Due to the instability of the salt cavern with temperatures
above 325 K, the maximum inlet air temperature is set to T4. The
2.2.1. Compressor-module stability of the cavern is depending as well on the pressure inside
The available compressor power P12 (MW) and the cavern pres- the cavern. For the defined depth of 900 m a minimum cavern
sure p4 (Pa) are input variables for the compressor thread. The con- pressure pmin is set to 100 bar and the maximum pressure to
straints of the compression process are shown in Table 1. The 150 bar. The specific constraints are displayed in Table 2.
isentropic compressor efficiency gci of industrial turbo compres-
sors are in the range of 85–90% [27]. Therefore, the average of 2.2.3. Turbine-module
87.5% was chosen for the calculation. Because no adiabatic com- The maximum power of the turbine is 300 MW. Mass-flow at
pressor has been built until now, the isentropic efficiency of the full load is limited to 500 kg/s and dependent on the cavern pres-
compressor was set equal to the adiabatic compressor. The capac- sure as well as the defined turbine performance. The working pres-
ity of the compressor results from the average specific compression sure range at the turbine inlet is set to 100–150 bar and at the
work and the mass flow [28]. The variation of the outlet pressure turbine outlet greater or equal to ambient pressure. The outlet
depends on the charging level of the cavern. Furthermore it is af- temperature is additionally constrained above icing level of
fected by the specific compression work w(t)12s as well as the tem- 273.15 K. The start ramp of the turbine is defined to be linear with
perature T(t)2. The start-up time of the compressor is Dt = 15 min an increase to 100% within 15 min. The efficiency is set to 92.5%,
[29]. The downstream heat exchanger reduces the temperature which is the average of industrial gas turbines (90–95% [27]).
to T3 consuming the power Pel 23. (See Table 3).
In configuration II, compressor 1 reaches a constant pressure ra-
tio of p = 6 and consequently a constant power demand for com- 2.2.4. Motor/generator-module
pression and cooling. Multistage high pressure compressors can The electric motor and generator are standard components and
reach a pressure ratio in the range of 1.1:1 up to 40:1, whereby therefore modeled with a constant efficiency of gM = gG = 98%
low pressure ratios result in higher efficiencies [30,31]. In the first (upper value from Literature g between 90% and 98% [27]).
compression stage an axial-flow compressor with high throughput
is modeled. The final compression pressure is achieved within the 3. Results and discussion

The CAES plant is analyzed for constant charging and constant

Table 1
Parameter and variables of adiabatic CAES.
discharging power. In Fig. 3, the time profiles of configuration I
over 12 h of the outlet temperature after the compression Tout
Module Compressor TES Turbine and the cooling load Ecool needed to cool down the compressed
Isen-/polytropic dp = 0 dp = 0 Isen-/polytropic air to the required default temperature of the thermal storage
Pel max (MW) 300 Var Var 300 are shown.
gc,t (%) 87.5 100 97.7 92.5

Table 2
Change of 1 2 3 4 5 6
Geometrical dimensions of the cavern [33].
state
T (K) 293.15 T2 (t) 893.15 323.15 873.15 T6 V (m3) 500,000
(t) > 273.15 L (m) 145
p (bar) 1.013 p2 p3 (t) p4 (t) p5 (t) p6 (t) > 1.013 D (m) 80
(t) H (m) 1045
 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548
Table 3
Energy use and efficiency of CAES (configuration I) for one constant charging and
discharging process at maximum power.
Compression Turbine gstorage (%)
Configuration I 2602 MWh 1361 MWh 52
Configuration Ic 3457 MWh 1361 MWh 39
1300
1250
Tout [K]
1200
1150
1100
0 2 4 6 8 10
1000
Ecool [MWh]
750
500
250
0 constantly during the charging process. After the second compres-
0 2 4 6 8 10
Hour [h]
Fig. 3. Constant charging with max. charging power over 12 h (configuration I).
The charging is performed beginning with the lowest pressure
of 100 bar in the cavern until the maximum pressure of 150 bar
is reached. The compressor starts up until the maximum power
of 300 MW in the first 15 min. At maximum pressure in the stor-
age, the power of the compressor drops to 0 MW. The temperature
at the outlet of the compressor increases during the charging pro-
cess from about 1120 K to 1255 K. In the case of using the maxi-
mum pressure limits of the cavern, the outlet temperature can
even rise until 1615 K (at a minimum cavern pressure of 55 bar;
maximum cavern pressure of 370 bar; depth of cavern of 2000 m
[34,35]). The required energy to cool down the air for the thermal
storage inlet temperature rises slightly over proportional with
higher pressure in the cavern and higher outlet temperature of
the compressor to about 850 MWh. The complete charging process
takes almost 12 h, which is certainly highly depending on the size
of the cavern and thermal storage as well as on the power of the
compressor. The discharging is performed with the constant power
of the turbine Pel_turb of 300 MW. With predetermined outlet pres-
sure of the turbine and declining pressure in the cavern, the outlet
air temperature of the turbine rises until about 325 K. The dis-
charging time is about 4.6 h. The efficiency of the plant is measured
by calculating the energy output of one discharging process of the
turbine and the energy input for the compression for one charge
process.
Including the aftercooling/heating, the efficiency is about 13%
lower than for configuration I. The efficiency is hereby lower than
the overall efficiency of the diabatic CAES plant in McIntosh, USA,
which was built in 1991 and reaches an efficiency of 54% ([3,36–
38]) due to the heat recuperation. Therefore, with the introduced
storage layout of an adiabatic CAES plant it is possible to achieve
storage efficiencies up to those of the existing diabatic CAES plant
in McIntosh. However, especially the cooling demand of the aft-
ercooling is high and the high outlet temperatures of about
1255 K result in high liability of the compressor.
To reduce the high temperatures after the compression process,
the model is further developed to a two-stage compression design
including an intercooling/-heating device (configuration II).
To reduce high temperatures at the compressor outlet a
low- and high pressure compressor are modeled including an
inter- and aftercooling/-heating device. The intercooling/-heating
545
reduces the temperature of the compressed air after the first
compression to the given inlet temperature of the second compres-
sor of T2 = 393.15 K. As in configuration I the aftercooling device re-
duces the temperature to the required temperature T5 of the
thermal storage. The turbine remains in a one-stage process. The
simulation of a two-stage turbine configuration shows, that the
efficiency only increases if the input temperature of the second
stage can be held as high as in the first stage. Higher input temper-
atures of the second stage can only be achieved with the additional
co-firing of natural gas in the turbine to heat up the gas in the
interheating stage. The required interheating demand however
balances the increase of efficiency in the two-stage turbine pro-
cess. Therefore in the following the turbine is always designed as
a one-stage configuration. In Fig. 4, the time profile over 8 h for
12 the outlet temperature of the first compression stage Tout1, the sec-
ond compression stage Tout2 as well as the required cooling energy
of the intercooling Ecool1 and aftercooling Ecool2 are displayed.
It can be seen, that due to the intercooling the overall temper-
ature of the compressed air does not reach the high values of the
one-stage configuration. The required energy for intercooling rises
12
sion the required energy for aftercooling increases above average.
The reason is the rising cooling demand with higher temperatures
of the compressed air. The overall efficiencies of the two-stage
compression configuration are summarized in Table 4.
As the efficiency decrease between I and Ic, the efficiency de-
creases considerably (about 12%) for a two stage compression by
including the aftercooling/heating demand. Additionally it can be
seen, that the overall efficiency of the storage increases between
the one-stage and two-stage system by about 10%.
In the next step the two-stage configuration is further devel-
oped to a three stage configuration (cf. Fig. 2). The goal of the
enhancement is to reduce the aftercooling as well as heating de-
mand and therefore reach a higher efficiency. The values of the effi-
ciency of one charging and discharging cycle are summarized in
Table 5.
The efficiency for the charging and discharging cycle, excluding
the inter and aftercooling and -heating is about 63%. Including all
cooling and heating loads, the efficiency drops to about 52%. It
can be seen, that compared to the two-stage configuration, the effi-
ciency excluding the cooling and heating load increases slightly,
even though a third compression stage is introduced in the
CAES-configuration.
In the case of the configuration IIIc the efficiency increase is a
little more noticeable. The increase hereby is caused by the parti-
tioning of the second compression stage (of configuration II) in
three stages, wherby an overall lower energy use for cooling or
heating can be achieved. The second stage in configuration II needs
to cover a high pressure difference, producing high compression
outlet temperatures.
To summarize, the polytropic and isentropic efficiencies of the
different CAES configurations are shown in Table 6. The isentropic
process is distinguished to the polytropic process by an isentropic
compression, isobaric cooling or heating, loss-less storage of ther-
mal energy and working fluid and isentropic relaxation. No effi-
ciency losses of the motor or generator are included in the
isentropic process.
The maximum efficiency, which can be reached by the CAES
plant, is described by the isentropic efficiency. The increase of
the efficiency from one-stage to two-stage in the polytropic pro-
cess is about 10% in each case. The further increase from the
two-stage to the three-stage is marginal. It can therefore be
concluded that, with the given input parameters, a further devel-
opment to a four-stage configuration will result in no considerable
improvement of the efficiency. The difference between the isentro-
pic process including cooling and heating and isentropic process
546 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548

550 1050

500 1000

Tout [K]
Tout [K]

2
1
450 950

400 900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

350 350
300 300
[MWh]

E cool [MWh]
250 250
200 200
150 150
1

2
cool

100 100
E

50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Hour [h] Hour [h]

Fig. 4. Constant charging with max. charging power over 8 h (configuration II).

Table 4 (configuration III) is varied. Due to the low inlet temperature in

Energy use and efficiency of CAES storage (configuration II) for one constant charging
the turbine it is held in a one-stage configuration. Simulations
and discharging process at maximum power.
showed that the output electric energy falls by about 1.5% due to
Compression Turbine gstorage the enhancement of the one-stage turbine to a two-stage turbine.
(%)
1st stage 2nd stage The efficiency of the system is hereby analyzed in the parameter
Configuration II 595 MWh 1642 MWh 1361 MWh 61 variation. Additionally to the variation of the inlet temperature,
Configuration IIc 903 MWh 1849 MWh 1361 MWh 49 the results are shown for different system configurations (includ-
ing and excluding the heating and cooling demand). In the follow-
ing, first the inlet temperature of the second compression stage of
Table 5 the two-stage CAES plant is varied. Since the inlet temperature of
Energy use and efficiency of CAES storage (configuration III) for one constant charging the second compression stage is given in advance, the parameter
and discharging process at maximum power. is varied between T1 = 293.15 K and T3 = 893.15 K. The efficiency
Compression Turbine gstorage for one compression and one relaxation process is shown in
(%) Fig. 5. Four different calculations of the efficiency are displayed:
1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage
Configuration 595 MWh 744 MWh 816 MWh 1361 MWh 63 1. The efficiency g2 without any use of inter- and aftercooling or
III
Configuration 989 MWh 744 MWh 879 MWh 1361 MWh 52
inter- and afterheating is shown. This efficiency represents
IIIc the case that all heating and cooling energy can be provided
without any energy effort and therefore represents the opti-
mum design of a polytropic compressed air energy process.
2. If a natural cooling source is present, it can be assumed that no
Table 6 active cooling has to be performed. In this case there will be an
Polytropic and isentropic efficiency of the different CAES configurations. electricity demand for pumping the cooling fluid. However this
electricity demand is much lower than the cooling demand cal-
gstorage_polytropic gstorage_isentropic
culated in this paper. It can therefore be expected, that if a nat-
I (%) II (%) III (%) IV (%)
ural cooling source is present, the efficiency will be close to
52 61 63 70 g2_heat, where the efficiency is calculated without any cooling
c 39 49 52
power and including the inter- and afterheating power.
3. The efficiency g2_cool demonstrates the state where the inter-
and aftercooling is included and the inter- and afterheating is
excluding cooling and heating is slightly higher than for the poly-
excluded in the calculation.
tropic process. The reason is the higher energy demand for the iso-
4. The last curve in Fig. 5 describes the efficiency g2_cool_heat where
baric cooling and heating in the isentropic process, which is
all cooling and heating power is included. This efficiency repre-
partially compensated by the efficiency losses of the motor and
sents the state, where all losses are included in the calculation
generator in the polytropic process. Higher efficiencies can espe-
and therefore the minimum efficiency of a polytropic com-
cially be achieved with higher inlet temperatures of the turbine.
pressed air energy plant is achieved for one charging and dis-
charging cycle (under the given input parameters).
3.1. Variation of important input parameters
Especially if the inlet temperature of the second compression
The compression and turbine inlet temperature exhibits consid- stage is near the ambient temperature, the efficiency rises above
erable effects on the performance and efficiency of the system. 70%. It can be seen, that especially the change of the inlet temper-
Therefore, in the following, the inlet temperature of the second ature for low inlet temperature values results in a high change of
compression stage (configuration II) and third compression stage efficiency. The decline of the efficiency g2 with rising second stage
 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548
100
η2
90 η2_heat
η2_cool
80 η2_cool_heat
70
Efficiency [%]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
293.15 493.15 693.15 893.15
Inlet temperature of 2nd. compression [K]
Fig. 5. Influence of different inlet temperatures of the second compressor on the
efficiency (configuration II) for one constant charging and discharging process at
maximum power.
inlet temperature results from the decrease of mass flow, which
follows out of the higher reversible steady-flow work in the com-
pressor. To reach the required thermal storage temperature, the
afterheating demand increases for low 2nd-stage inlet tempera-
tures. For high 2nd-stage inlet temperatures an additional inter-
heating is needed, to reach the high inlet temperatures of the
2nd compressor.
Efficiency g2_cool reaches its maximum for low inlet tempera-
tures (55% at 293 K) due to the reduced cooling demand to reduce
the surplus heat in case of higher inlet temperatures. The maxi-
mum of g2_heat is about 62% at inlet temperature of 360 K. The effi-
ciency g2_cool_heat shows a similar characteristic as g2_heat for
varying 2nd-stage inlet temperatures with a maximum of about
52% (at 360 K). The low values of g2_cool_heat for 2nd-stage inlet
temperature lower than 350 K, are caused by the additional int-
ercooling after the first compression and afterheating subsequent
to the 2nd compressor. The likewise low values of g2_cool_heat for
2nd-stage inlet temperatures higher than about 500 K are caused
by the additional heating demand after the first compression and
cooling demand after the second compression to achieve the re-
quired inlet temperatures of the second stage compression.
As in the analysis of the two-stage configuration, a variation of
the inlet temperature of the third compressor is shown in Fig. 6.
Hereby the results are shown for the efficiencies g3, g3_cool,
g3_heat and g3_cool_heat. Since the efficiency out of the second stage
analysis is highest (for g2_heat and g2_cool_heat) for a 2nd-stage inlet
temperature of 373.15 K, the inlet temperature of the second com-
pression stage is set to the value in the following. The inlet temper-
ature of the 3rd compressor is varied between 373.15 K and
893.15 K, which is the inlet temperature of the thermal storage.
The efficiency g3 decreases from its default value of 77% at the
inlet temperature of about 373.15 K to about 52% at the inlet tem-
perature of 893.15 K. The maximum of g3_cool (51%) is reached at
600 K, for g3_heat (61%) at 600 K and for g3_cool_heat (50%) at 600 K.
To summarize, an increase of the inlet temperature of the heat
storage will result in higher output electric energy. However an inlet
temperature of 893 K is already ambitious (refer to [4,28,39,40]). In
the case of a one-stage compression configuration, the outlet-tem-
perature is the crucial point of the configuration. In [40,41] the
547
100
η3
90 η3_heat
η3_cool
80 η3_cool_heat
70
Efficiency [%]
60
50
40
30
20
10
293.15 373.15 453.15 533.15 613.15 693.15 773.15 853.15
Inlet temperature of 3nd. compression [K]
Fig. 6. Influence of different inlet temperatures of the second compressor on the
efficiency (configuration III) for one constant charging and discharging process at
maximum power.
defined maximum outlet temperature of the compression is about
1270 K. Therefore the high temperatures of over 1300 K (in case of
higher pressures in the cavern) will need further development of
heat resistant compressor designs. The temperature challenge is re-
duced with the introduction of the two-stage and three-stage com-
pression configuration. Hereby the maximum outlet temperature
drops to 941 K for the two-stage compression and 959 K for the
three-stage compression. A four-stage compression configuration
hereby features no additional improvement, due to the increasing
heating demand.
4. Conclusion
Different Compressed Air Energy Storage configurations were
analyzed for their efficiencies with the help of an energy balance
in this paper. The four main components were modeled separately
to achieve a modular layout, which can be merged to different
CAES configurations. The results show, that an adiabatic Com-
pressed Air Energy Storage plant can be described by a simple ther-
modynamic derivation. The isentropic efficiency of the CAES plant
can rise up to 70%. A more realistic assessment delivers the poly-
tropic simulation of the storage. The efficiency of a two-stage com-
pression and one stage relaxation adiabatic CAES plant can be
expected to be between 49% and 61%. However the upper value ex-
cludes all cooling and heating demand and the lower value in-
cludes all cooling and heating demand. If the second stage inlet
temperature is varied, an efficiency increase to the values between
52% and 62% can be achieved. The two-stage compression configu-
ration was considered to be the best alternative, because the effi-
ciency increase compared to the one-stage compression was
considerable (about 10%).
Several parameters have a strong impact the efficiency. The in-
ter- and aftercooling and if applicable the inter and afterheating
decreases the efficiency strongly. To reduce the impact of heating
and cooling, research in the field of high temperature thermal sto-
rages (>600 °C) and temperature resistant materials for compres-
sors is needed. Also, the efficiency of a future adiabatic CAES
plant will depend significantly on the potential of using natural
surrounding cooling sources.
548 N. Hartmann et al. / Applied Energy 93 (2012) 541–548
The calculated efficiency of a two-stage adiabatic Compressed
Air Energy Storage ranges between 52% and 62%. A realistic
approximation of the efficiency for a system with low additional
energy use for cooling is about 60%. Even though this is lower by
about 10% compared to literature values (70%), the plant hereby
operates without any fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emis-
sions and therefore is considered as a good alternative for future
energy systems to compensate fluctuating energy production e.g.
from renewable energies. Subsequent to the paper a more detailed
analysis of the energy flows within the system boundaries will be
performed. Hereby each component will be evaluated including
energy and exergy efficiency.
Acknowledgment
Niklas Hartmann is supported by the doctoral scholarship of the
‘‘Reiner Lemoine foundation’’.
References
[1] Crotogino F, Mohmeyer K-U, Scharf R. Huntorf CAES: more than 20 Years of
Successful Operation. In: Proceedings of SMRI Spring Meeting, Orlando,
Florida, USA; 15–18 April 2001.
[2] Crotogino F. Druckluftspeicher-Kraftwerke zum Ausgleich fluktuieren der
Windenergie/Stand der Technik und neue Entwicklungen, 6. Flensburger
Windenergie-Forum; 2006. p. 25.
[3] Lee SS, Kim YM, Park JK, Moon SI, Yoon YT. 538 Compressed air energy storage
units for power generation and DSM in Korea. In: IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, Tampa 24.–28.06.2007. p. 1–6.
[4] Zunft S, Tamme R, Nowi A, Jakiel C. Adiabate Druckluftspeicherkraftwerke:
Ein Element zur netzkonformen Integration von Windenergie,
Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen (et); 2005. p. 254–8.
[5] Calaminus B. Innovatives Druckluftspeicherkraftwerk der EnBW – Adiabatic
Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) – Kraftwerk zur Speicherung großer
Mengen regenerativ erzeugten Stroms, Energietage Hannover; 2007.
[6] Succar S, Williams RH. Compressed air energy storage: theory resources and
applications for wind power energy systems analysis group. Springer; 2008.
[7] Bullough C, Gatzen C, Jakiel C, Koller M, Nowi A, Zunft S. Advanced adiabatic
compressed air energy storage for the integration of wind, European Wind
Energy Conf. EWEC 2004, London UK; 2004.
[8] Ibrahim H, Ilinca A, Perron J. Energy storage systems – characteristics and
comparisons Renewable and 560 Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 12; 2008. p.
1221–50.
[9] Bullough, C.: AA-CAES – integration of wind energy; 2004.
[10] Calaminus, Bernd. Adiabater Druckluft als Option für Bulk-Stromspeicher. In:
Vortrag bei der Hochschulgruppe Kine; 2009.
[11] Crotogino Fritz, Kleinefeld Bärbel. Druckluftspeicher-Kraftwerke zum
Ausgleich fluktuierender Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien. In:
Energieforum Druckluftspeicher-Kraftwerke; 2005.
[12] Crotogino: Druckluftspeicher-Kraftwerke zum Ausgleich fluktuierender
Windenergie/Stand der Technik und neue Entwicklungen. In: 6. Flensburger
Windenergie-Forum. KBB Underground Technologies GmbH; 2006.
[13] Jakiel, Christoph: Entwicklung von Großdampfturbinen, Wärmespeichern und
Hochtemperatur-Kompressoren für adiabate Druckluftspeicherkraftwerke. In:
dena-EnergieForum Druckluftspeicherkraftwerke; 2005.
[14] EPRI: history of first US compressed air energy storage (CAES) plant (110-MW-
26 h): vol. 1: early case development/electric power research institute; 1993. –
Forschungsbericht.
[15] EPRI: history of first US compressed-air energy storage (CAES) plant (110 MW
26h): vol. 2: construction/electric power research institute. 1994. –
Forschungsbericht.
[16] Vadasz P. Compressed air energy storage: optimal performance and techno-
economical indices. Int J Appl Thermodynam 1999;2(2):S69–80.
[17] Zunft Stefan, Jakiel Christoph, Koller Martin, Bullough Chris. Adiabatic
Compressed air energy storage for the grid integration of wind power. in:
sixth international workshop on large-scale integration of wind power and
transmission networks for offshore windfarms, 26–28 October 2006, Delft, the
Netherlands, 2006 PG Jahrestagung, Berlin; 2005.
[18] Lund Henrik, Salgi Georges. The role of compressed air energy storage (CAES)
in future sustainable energy systems. Energy Convers Manage
2009;50:1172–9.
[19] Yoshimoto K, Nanahara T. Optimal daily operation of electric power
systems with an ACC-CAES generating system. Electr Eng Jpn 2005;152:
15–23.
[20] Lund Henrik, Salgi Georges, Elmegaard Brian, Andersen N. Optimal operation
strategies of compressed air energy storage (CAES) on electricity spot markets
with fluctuating prices. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:799–806.
[21] Kruck Christoph. Integration einer Stromerzeugung aus Windenergie und
Speichersystemen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Druckluft-
Speicherkraftwerken, Universität Stuttgart, Dissertation; 2008.
[22] Cavallo Alfred. Controllable and affordable utility-scale electricity from
intermittent wind resources and compressed air energy storage (CAES).
Energy 2007;32(2):120–7.
[23] Jia Guang-Zheng, Wang Xuan yin, Wu Gen Mao. Investigation on wind energy-
compressed air power system. J Zhejiang Univ Sci 2004;5(3):290–5.
[24] Greenblatt Jeffery B, Succar Samir, Denkenberger David C, Williams Robert H,
Socolow Robert H. Baseload wind energy: modeling the competition between
gas turbines and compressed air energy storage for supplemental generation.
Energy Policy 2007;35(3):1474–92.
[25] Grazzini G, Milazzo A. Thermodynamic analysis of CAES/TES systems for
renewable energy plants. Renew Energy 2008;33(9):1998–2006.
[26] Baehr HD. Adiabate Turbinen und Verdichter.
Thermodynamik. Berlin: Springer; 2005. p. 405–09.
[27] Baehr HD, Kabelac S. Thermodynamik Grundlagen und technische
Anwendungen, vol. 13. Reihe: Springer-Lehrbuch, Springer Verlag; 2006. neu
bearb. u. erw. Aufl.
[28] Zunft S. Diabate und Adiabate Druckluftspeicherkraftwerke, VDI-GET
Fachtagung, Fortschrittliche Energiewandlung und -anwendung. Strom und
Wärmeerzeugung – Kommunale und industrielle Energieanwendungen, 5.
dena-EnergieForum – Druckluftspeicherkraftwerke; 2005.
[29] Crotogino F. Grid scale energy storage based on pumped hydro, compressed air
and hydrogen Jornada Almacenamiento de Energía: ¿La asignatura pendiente
del sistema eléctrico?; 2010.
[30] Boyce MP. Gas turbine engineering 606 Handbook 3rd ed. Elsevier; 2006.
<http://knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_
EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=1887&VerticalID=0 DPG Jahrestagung>.
Berlin; 2005.
[31] Emmrich R. Experimentelle und numerische Untersuchungen an einem
einstufigen Axialverdichter mit Casing-Treatment, Dissertation, Fakultät für
Maschinenwesen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule
Aachen; 2009.
[32] Dincer I, Dost S. A perspective on thermal energy storage systems for solar
energy applications. Int J Energy Res, vol. 20. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.,
A Wiley Company; 1996.
[33] Calaminus B. Adiabater Druckluft als Option für Bulk-Stromspeicher, Vortrag
bei der Hochschulgruppe Kine; 2009.
[34] Bérest P, Brouard B. Safety of salt caverns used for underground storage blow
out; mechanical instability; seepage; cavern abandonment. Oil Gas Sci Technol
– Rev 2003;IFP 58(3):361–84.
[35] DeVries KL. Improved modeling increases salt cavern storage working gas. Gas
TIPS 2003;9(1):33–6. Winter.
[36] Kruck C, Eltrop L. Perspektiven der Stromerzeugung aus Solar und
Windenergienutzung für eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung in Deutschland.
Projekt Stiftung Energieforschung Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart; 2007.
[37] Hartmann N, Kruck C, Eltrop L, Spahic E. Integration großer
Windenergiekapazitäten durch Speichersysteme, Projekt Stiftung
Energieforschung Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart; 2009.
[38] Crotogino F. Compressed air storage. In: Proceedings of international
conference the case of energy autonomy: storing renewable energies;
October 2006.
[39] Steinmann WD, Schulte R and Scherrer P. EVA - Thermische Energiespeicher
zur Verstromung diskontinuierlicher Abwärme. Forschungsbericht BWPLUS;
Juli 2010.
[40] Nölke M. Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) – Eine sinnvolle Ergänzung
zur Energieversorgung? Promotionsvortrag, Institut für Energieforschung -
Brennstoffzellen am Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH; 2006.
[41] Kranzmann A. Stromerzeugung ohne CO2Ausstoßin die Erdatmosphäre – CO2-
Reduktions-Technologie, DPG Jahrestagung, Berlin; 2005.