Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsep

Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage: A technology overview T

⁎
Alberto Benato , Anna Stoppato
Department of Industrial Engineering (DII), University of Padova, via Venezia 1, 35131 Padova, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A large penetration of variable intermittent renewable energy sources into the electric grid is stressing the need
Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage of installing large-scale Energy Storage units. Pumped Hydro Storage, Compressed Air Energy Storage and Flow
Pumped Heat Energy Storage Batteries are the commercially available large-scale energy storage technologies. However, these technologies
Reversible Brayton cycle suffer of geographical constrains (such as Pumped Hydro Storage and Compressed Air Energy Storage), require
Transcritical Rankine Cycle
fossil fuel streams (like Compressed Air Energy Storage) or are characterised by low cycle life (Flow Batteries).
Compressed Heat Energy STorage
For this reason, there is the need of developing new large-scale Energy Storage Technologies which do not suffer
of the above-mentioned drawbacks. Among the in-developing large-scale Energy Storage Technologies, Pumped
Thermal Electricity Storage or Pumped Heat Energy Storage is the most promising one due to its long cycle life,
no geographical limitations, no need of fossil fuel streams and capability of being integrated into conventional
fossil-fuelled power plants. Based on these evidences, in the present work, a literature survey on the Pumped
Thermal Electricity Storage technology is presented with the aim of analysing its actual configurations and state
of development.

1. Introduction
In the past decades, the world energy consumption is increased
more than 30% [1] and, at the same time, also the greenhouse gas
emissions from human activities are raised. These aspects coupled with
the increment of the fossil fuel prices have obligated the European
Union and the other world authorities to ratify more stringent en-
vironmental protection measurements and to develop and adopt energy
efficiency policies, such as the one called “20–20-20 Climate and En-
ergy Plan” in which targets of primary energy consumption, renewable
energy sources production and greenhouse gases reduction are fixed.
In order to reach the targets, governments have established sub-
sidies especially to promote the electricity generation from Renewable
Energy Sources (RES). In fact, statistics show that, in the last decade,
the electricity produced from RES has rapidly increased. But, the most
installed RES units are the ones fed by wind and solar.
An emblematic example is represented by the Italian renewables
sector (data available on [2]). In 2006, the photovoltaic (PV) plants
were 14 with an installed power and an annual gross electricity pro-
duction equal to 7.17 MW and 2.3 GWh, respectively. In 2007, the PV
plants have become 7647 with an installed power of 86.80 MW and an
annual gross electricity production equal to 39.10 GWh. An increment
of 1109.3% of the installed power in one year. After 10 years (2016),
the installed PV plants were 732053 while their power and annual gross
electricity production were 19283.17 MW and 22104.3 GWh,
respectively.
A similar trend can be observed analysing the Italian wind power
sector, while a lack of growth in terms of installed power and produc-
tion can be observed in the hydroelectric power sector.
In 2006, the installed wind turbines were 169 while 10 years later
they were become 3598. The installed power and the annual gross
electricity production were 1908.3 MW and 2970.7 GWh in 2006 while,
in 2016, they were become 9409.9 MW and 17688.7 GWh, respectively.
Regarding the hydroelectric power sector, the installed power and
the annual gross electricity production in 2006 were, respectively,
23151 MW and 42565.8 GWh, while, in 2016, they become 24455 MW
and 43695.3 GWh. Despite this lack of growth, in 2006 there were 1912
hydro-power plants while, in 2016, their number were increased of
1930 units. This means that, in 10 years, the number of plants is dou-
bled while the installed power is grew up only by 5%. Considering the
hydroelectric power plants detailed data it is possible to observe that
the number of plants with a design power in the range 0–1 MW rose by
134% in the period 2006–2016 while the ones in the ranges 1–10 MW
and with a nameplate power higher than 10 MW rose by 39% and 3%,
respectively. Being estimated that the 90% of the Italian hydroelectric
potential has been exploited, today, only mini and micro hydroelectric
power units with a nameplate power lower than 1 MW can be built in
Italy. A fact that justifies the high number of installed plants and the
poor growth in the installed power.
Wind, solar, hydro, etc. are environmental friendly energy sources

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alberto.benato@unipd.it (A. Benato).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2018.01.017

2451-9049/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

A. Benato, A. Stoppato Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315

Nomenclature LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LPES Liquid Piston Energy Storage
Abbreviations MES Mechanical Energy Storage
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
A-CAES Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage PHES Pumped Heat Energy Storage
ARES Advanced Rail Energy Storage PHS Pumped Hydro Storage
CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage PHS Pumped Hydro Storage
CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage PSB Polysulphide-bromine flow batteries
CES Chemical Energy Storage PTES Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage
CHEST Compressed Heat Energy STorage PTES Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage
D-CAES Diabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage PV Photovoltaic
EES Electric Energy Storage RES Renewable Energy Sources
ES Energy Storage SH-TES Sensible Heat Thermal Energy Storage
EST Electricity Storage Technologies SMES Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage
ETES ElectroThermal Energy Storage TCES ThermoChemical Energy Storage
FB Flow Battery TES Thermal Energy Storage
FES Flywheels Energy Storage VRB Vanadium redox flow batteries
FFPP Fossil-Fuelled Power Plant VRES Variable Renewable Energy Sources
GES Gravity Energy Storage VW-CAES UnderWater Compressed Air Energy Storage
GPM Gravity Power Module ZBB Zinc-bromine flow batteries
I-CAES Isothermal Compressed Air Energy Storage
IEA International Energy Agency Subscripts
LAES Liquid Air Energy Storage
LH-TES Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage th thermal

which guarantee to produce electricity in eco-friendly ways but, unlike
the hydroelectric power, wind and solar production suffer of high
variability, unpredictability and uncontrollability. Characteristics
which cause large fluctuations in their daily, monthly or even annually
power production. But, in large electric grids, these power fluctuations
result in management and control problems that only the insertion of
large-scale Electric Energy Storage (EES) units can help to manage.
Apart from the estimations, the actual need of energy storages is
related to the way in which the large electric grids have been built in
the past fifty years. The traditional grid arrangement consists of a high
number of agglomerated users and few large power generation units.
The users demand is forecast far in advance using mathematical models
based on historical data and long terms statistics while the unpredicted
peaks in the demand are smoothed by the high number of users or using
power generation technologies characterised by fast response like hy-
droelectric power plants. In this way, a stable and secure service is
guaranteed.
But, in the recent years, large number of plants fed by Variable
Renewable Energy Sources (VRES) have been added to the traditional
grid introducing management and control issues. In fact, with a high
number of users and producers, the demand and the plants production
become difficult to forecast. Thus, there can be areas characterised by
over-capacity and areas with under-capacity. Unbalance between pro-
duction and demand which are difficult to predict and manage and that
can cause local o even global blackouts.
Note that, the above-mentioned issues will grow with the increment
of VRES plants because, as remarked in [3], the grid is able to absorb
fluctuations only if the VRES power is up to 10% of the system installed
capacity. Therefore, being expected a large integration of VRES in the
near future to guarantee the energy transition, there is an urgent need
of developing and installing large-scale electric energy storage systems
able to control the mismatch between supply and demand. The Inter-
national Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that an electricity capacity of
7200 GW needs to be built worldwide by 2040 to cover the increasing
energy demand. But also a capacity of 310 GW of additional electric
energy storage needs to be built in US, Europe, China and India to
compensate the presence in the electric grid of a large number of in-
termittent (such as wind, solar, etc.) and non-flexible (e.g. nuclear)
plants [4,5].
In this scenario, the available large-scale Electricity Storage
Technologies (ESTs), like Pumped Hydro Storage (PHS) or Compressed
Air Energy Storage (CAES), can play a fundamental role. But, due to
their need of suitable geographical sites, these energy storages (ESs) can
be built only in countries with favourable morphology. Therefore, al-
ternative ESTs need to be explored.
Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage (PTES) or Pumped Heat Energy
Storage (PHES) can become a valuable technology able to store large
quantity of energy in a cheap way especially if they use Sensible Heat
Thermal Energy Storage (SH-TES). In addition, PTES units can con-
tribute into the challenging process of integrating ESs into fossil-fuelled
power plants (FFPPs) or in their re-powering. In the first case, PTES can
help into the reduction of FFPPs fast ramp rates, possible low load le-
vels, cycling operations and overnight shut-downs while, in the second
case, the components of an underutilised fossil-fuelled power plant can
be partially reused to build the PTES unit.
Based on these remarks, in the present work, the Authors propose a
comprehensive review of the PTES technology with the aim of ana-
lysing its actual configurations and state of development.
2. Energy storage technologies
Before classifying the energy storage technologies, it is fundamental
to define the energy storage concept.
An Energy Storage is a device or a system in which energy can be
stored in some form. Subsequently, this energy can be extracted to
perform some useful operation.
To store some form of energy, three steps need to be done: charging,
storing and discharging. Each step can occur more than one time during
each storage cycle and some of the steps can take place simultaneously
[6].
It is well known that there are several forms of energy, but they can
be mainly grouped in two categories: primary and secondary form of
energy [7]. The first category includes all the energy forms which are
not subjected to any kind of conversion or transformation process. Coal,
natural gas, crude oil, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, falling water, etc.
are primary energy forms while electricity, heat, hydrogen, gasoline,
diesel, etc. are secondary forms of energy because they are a product of
a conversion or transformation process from other energy forms.

302
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
Based on this classification, also energy storage can be classified as
primary and secondary energy storage [8].
Coal, natural gas, crude oil and biomass are primary and easy to
store “as is” forms of energy. Coal is usually stored in piles while bio-
mass can be stoked as wood pellets, chips, logs or dust. Crude oil is
storable in large containers while natural gas can be stoked as a gaseous
medium in underground caverns (or pressurized vessels) or in its liquid
form as liquefied natural gas (LNG) in containers.
Wind, solar, tidal and wave are also primary energy forms, but they
are storable only after a transformation into a secondary energy forms
like electricity, heat or work.
Storing secondary energy forms is an easy process when they are in
gaseous or liquid phase while stoking work, heat and electricity is a
really challenging process because storing these kind of secondary en-
ergy forms can contribute to spread VRES but also can help to diminish
fossil fuel consumption which in turns result in a cut of CO2 and
greenhouse gases emissions.
Gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, methane, biofuels, etc. are easily stor-
able in tanks, containers or pressurized vessels while heat and elec-
tricity need to be stoked using different kind of materials usually called
“energy carriers”. In a nutshell, during the charge, the energy source is
stored by means of an energy carrier while, during delivery, the stoked
energy is returned to supply the energy demand.
Based on the works available in the scientific literature, see e.g.
[9,8,10,11], there is not a unique way to classify the storage technol-
ogies. However, as done by Aneke and Wang [8], in the present work,
the Authors firstly grouped the energy storage in Electrical ES and
Thermal ES.
When electricity is converted into another stable form and stocked,
but after that it is restored again as electricity, the storage is called
“Electrical Energy Storage” while, when the stocked energy is restored
in the form of thermal energy (heat or cold), the storage process is
called “Thermal Energy Storage”.
Then, Electrical Energy Storage is sub-classified as follows:
Mechanical ES, Chemical ES, Electrochemical ES and Superconducting
Magnetic ES (SMES). Also Thermal Energy Storage can be sorted as:
Sensible Heat Storage, Latent Heat Storage and Thermochemical Heat
Storage. In the present work, only the storage of electricity in the form
of heat is considered.
In Mechanical Energy Storage (MES), electricity is converted into
another easy storable form of energy by means of electromechanical
systems while Chemical Energy Storage (CES) includes all the tech-
nologies which produce storable chemical compounds using electrical
energy. MES units include Pumped Hydro Storage, Compressed Air
Energy Storage, Gravity Energy Storage (GES), Liquid Piston Energy
Storage (LPES), Liquid Air Energy Storage (LAES), Pumped Thermal
Electricity Storage and Flywheels Energy Storage (FES) while hydrogen,
methane, hydrocarbons or biofuels like ethanol, methanol biodiesel,
etc. are part of the category called Chemical Energy Storage.
Supercapacitor and batteries constitute the technologies which com-
pose the Electrochemical Energy Storage systems.
Note that researchers like Aneke and Wang [8] do not include LAES
into MES but grouped this technology into a category called Cryogenic
Energy Storage. On the contrary, Gallo et al. [10] include LAES into
MES but include only batteries into Electrochemical ES because in their
classification Supercapacitor and SMES are considered Electric Energy
Storage.
Apart the way of classifying the technologies, it is essential to em-
phasize the following aspects:
• All the energy forms (e.g. chemical, potential, kinetic, electrical or
thermal) can be stored using an appropriate technology.
• Each energy storage technology has a suitable range of application.
• Each energy storage technology can be integrated at different levels
of the electricity system: generation, transmission, distribution or
customer level.
303
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
• Each storage technology has its own advantages, drawbacks and
scale of application.
• None of the available storage technologies are able to meet all the
requirements of the ideal ES: maturity, long lifetime, low cost, high
density, high round-trip efficiency and environmental friendliness.
In addition, only few of the above-mentioned technologies are able
to store quantity of energy higher than 100 MWh. Therefore, only PHS,
CAES, Flow Batteries (FBs), GES, LAES, PTES and Hydrogen Storage can
be considered large-scale electricity storage technologies.
To date, Pumped Hydro Storage is the most mature and widely
adopted storage technology while CAES and flow batteries are com-
mercially mature technologies but with a limited spread. On the con-
trary, GES, LAES, Hydrogen Storage and PTES can be considered in-
developing large-scale energy storage technologies.
2.1. Mature energy storage technologies
Pumped Hydro Storage or Pumped Hydroelectric Energy Storage is
the most mature, commercially available and widely adopted large-
scale energy storage technology since the 1890s. At the time of writing,
around the world, there are 340 facilities in operation with a total in-
stalled power of 178 GW [10]. The PHS technology uses gravity to store
the electrical energy and a typical plant layout consist of an upper and a
lower reservoirs, a waterfall, pipes, a pump, a turbine, an electric motor
and an electric generator [12]. The pump and the turbine can be se-
parated machines or the same device supplies both the functions. In the
second case, the turbomachine is called reversible pump-turbine. Also
the electric machine can be separated devices (a motor which moves
the pump and a generator connected to the turbine) or a unique elec-
trical machine (a motor/generator). A sketch of the PHS system is de-
picted in Fig. 1.
The basic concept of PHS is really simple. The off-peak power is
taken from the grid and used to feed the electric motor which drives the
pump. In this way, the water is pumped from the lower to the upper
reservoir and stored here. During high demand hours, the water is re-
leased from the upper to the lower reservoir through a turbine. The
turbine is mechanically coupled with an electric generator which
transforms the mechanical energy into the electrical ones and injects it
into the electric grid.
This storage technology actually covers the 99% of the world large-
scale energy storage installations [14], it is characterised by a very low
energy density (0.5–1.5 W h/l or 0.5–1.5 W h/kg) and self-discharge
(0.005–0.02 %/day), an acceptable price per stored energy unit
Fig. 1. Sketch of a Pumped Hydro Storage Unit [13].
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
(5–100$/kWh) and a high round-trip efficiency (65–87%). Note that
the round-trip efficiency is defined as the ratio between the produced
energy during discharging phase and the one absorbed during charging
phase. PHS units are also characterised by a power rating in the range
100–5000 MW, an energy storage capacity which can achieves values
higher than 1000 MWh, a long life (in the range of 30–60 years), a
really low response time (few seconds) and a very fast start up time: in a
coupled of minutes (generally less than 3 min), the plant is able to move
from zero to its full load. The major drawback of the PHS technology is
related to the need of an acceptable water availability and an adequate
geographical morphology. Aspect which increases the capital cost
(600–2000$/kW). For these reasons, new PHS units can be installed
only in countries with a favourable morphology or upgrading conven-
tional hydroelectric power units. In this case, it is expected a reduction
of the capital cost (100–300$/kW) and an increment of the power
rating (> 5000 MW).
For a reader interested in the PHS technlogy see, e.g., [15,16] while
a historical overview and a survey on technological developments can
be found in, e.g., [17,18].
Compressed Air Energy Storage is the second commercially available
large-scale energy storage technology (see Fig. 2). The first con-
ceptualization of CAES technology was presented in the early 1940s
[20] but the first CAES plant was built 30 years later.
As for the working principle of PHS, also the CAES one is really
simple. When the power demand is low, excess generation capacity is
used to compress the air and store it in an underground cavern (e.g.
hard rock caverns, salt caverns, depleted gas fields, aquifer, etc.) or in
aboveground man-made tanks, pipes, containers or vessels [21]. During
high peak demand hours, the stocked and pressurized air is drawn from
the storage, heated up (usually using natural gas) and expanded in an
air turbine. Being the air turbine mechanically coupled with an electric
generator, the potential energy of the pressurized air is converted back
into electricity. This kind of CAES plant is called Diabatic CAES (D-
CAES) because, during the compression phase, the generated heat is
wasted.
The two CAES plants today in operation use the above-mentioned
working principal. Subsequently, they are Diabatic CAES units. The first
CAES plant has been built in Huntorf (Germany) [22], it is in operation
since 1978 and it uses a 310000 m3 underground salt cavern at a depth
of 600 m. The working pressure is in the range from 50 to 70 bar while
its charging cycle requires 8 h. The plant is able to generate 290 MW for
2 h. Based on available data, the plant needs 0.8 MWh of electricity and
1.6 MWh of natural gas to produce 1 MWh of electricity. The second
CAES plant actually in operation has been built in McIntosh (USA) [23],
it is in operation since 1991 and uses a 538000 m3 underground salt
cavern at a depth of 450 m. The system works with a pressure in the
range from 45 to 76 bar. Since 1998, the plant was able to provide
110 MW for 26 h, but after the installation of two additional generators,
the plant can produce 226 MW. The system round-trip efficiency is
estimated in 34.5% because it needs as input 0.69 MWh of electricity
and 1.725 MWh of natural gas to generate 1 MWh of electricity.
Based on the practical experience, Diabatic CAES is characterized by
a round-trip efficiency in the range 40–89%, an energy density and a
price per stored energy unit of 3–12 W h/l (or 30–60 W h/kg) and
2–50$/kWh, respectively. The capital cost is estimated in the range
400–800$/kW, while the power rating, the storage capacity and the
lifetime are 5–300 MW, higher than 1000 MWh and 20–60 years.
Compared with PHS, the capital cost per cycle is higher (in PHS ap-
plication it is in the range 0.1–1.4$/kW h per cycle, while in CAES plant
it is 2–4$/kW h per cycle), while the self-discharge rate (for PHS it is in
the range 0.005–0.02 %/day while for CAES it is 0.003–0.03 %/day)
and the start-up time are comparable (∼3 min for PHS and ∼10 min for
D-CAES).
Despite these characteristics, Diabatic CAES is an energy storage
technology which uses fossil fuel. Then, this implies a non-negligible
environmental impact during the discharging phase. Therefore, during
304
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
the years, the researchers have studied and developed other plant
configurations with the aim of reducing fuel consumption, recovering
the heat generated during the compression process and mitigating the
issue related to the geographical requirements. Adiabatic CAES (A-
CAES), Isothermal CAES (I-CAES) and Underwater CAES (UW-CAES)
are the upgraded versions of the Diabatic CAES. It is expected that these
CAES layouts will be commercially available with a rated power from
0.1 MW to 1000 MW, storage capacity in the range 1–1000 MWh,
higher round-trip efficiency (75–95%) and lower start up time (less
than a minute compared to approximately 10 min of Diabatic CAES).
The energy density and the specific energy are expected to be the same,
while capital costs are expected, in general, higher (Adiabatic CAES:
700–1000$/kW and 40–80$/kWh, Isothermal CAES: 500–1000$/kW
and 10–100$/kWh, Underwater CAES: 750–2000$/kW and 40–200$/
kWh).
Despite the technology updates, CAES and PHS have the same
drawback: they require a particular morphology of the installation site.
But, until now, CAES remains the only technology able to compete with
PHS for large-scale ES applications despite the actual need of a fossil
fuel stream.
For a complete overview on CAES technology and its integration
with renewables, refer to, e.g., [24–28] while an interesting combina-
tion of CAES and PHS technologies is presented in [29].
The last already available large-scale energy storage technology is
Flow batteries. Flow batteries are a relatively young technology which
work in a similar manner as conventional batteries. The ions flow from
the negative and the positive electrodes during charging and delivering
phases respectively through a selective membrane.
During the years, several types of flow batteries have been devel-
oped. Hence, several works are available and can be used to determine
the actual state-of-the-art, the future developments, the critical safety
features and how to dynamically control the ions flow [30–35].
Flow batteries offer a power ranges from 0.005 to 15 MW, a storage
capacity from 0.010 to 10 MWh, a power density in the range
0.5–25 W/l (or 45–166 W/kg), and an energy density in the range
16–60 W h/l (or 10–85 W h/kg). FBs have a low self-discharge rate of
0.2–0.24 %/day and can become fully discharge without any damage.
Other characteristics are acceptable cycle life (2000–13000 cycles at
80% of Depth Of Discharge) and satisfying round-trip efficiency (from
57 to 90%). The major drawbacks are the poor lifetime (5–15 years)
and the high capital costs. Based on the most recent works, the price per
stored energy unit of flow batteries ranges between 120 and 1000$/
kWh. In particular, Vanadium redox flow batteries (VRB) are char-
acterised by a capital cost in the range 600–1500$/kW, a price per
stored energy unit in the range 150–1000$/kWh and a price per cycle
in the range 5–80$/kWh per cycle. Zinc-bromine flow batteries (ZBB)
have the same price per stored energy unit and price per cycle of
Vanadium redox flow batteries while the capital cost is higher
Fig. 2. Sketch of a Compressed Air Energy Storage Unit [19].
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
(700–2500$/kW). Finally, Polysulphide-bromine flow batteries (PSB)
are characterised by a capital cost in the range 330–2500$/kW and a
price per stored energy unit in the range 120–1000$/kWh.
Comparisons among the above-mentioned available large-scale en-
ergy storage technologies demonstrate that, in the near future, PHS will
remains the dominant technology while it is expected that CAES and
Flow batteries have a rapid development. Despite this outlook, there is
an urgent need of developing new large-scale ESTs which do not suffer
of geographical limitations (like PHS and CAES), low cycle life (such as
flow batteries), high capital cost and need of fossil fuels.
2.2. In-developing energy storage technologies
Gravity Energy Storage systems have been studied with the aim of
solving the main PHS drawbacks: need of a sufficient water flow and of
a particular geographical morphology of the installation site.
The first type of GES has been developed by Gravity Power and it is
called Gravity Power Module (GPM) [36]. The scheme of a GPM unit is
shown in Fig. 3. The system is a closed-loop composed by a deep storage
shaft, a return pipe, a large piston and a reversible pump-turbine. Water
is used as working fluid. The large piston, equipped with large sliding
seals which prevent leakage, is suspended in the deep storage shaft.
During low demand hours, the off-peak electricity is used to pump the
water from the deep storage shaft to the return pipe. In this way, the
large piston is lifted by the water from the bottom to the top of the deep
storage shaft. During high demand hours, the large piston moves from
the top to the bottom of the deep storage shaft and forces the water
along the return pipe. The water feeds the hydraulic turbine which
generates electrical energy. Despite the absence of GPM installations, a
round-trip efficiency higher than 80% [36] is expected for this storage
technology by Gravity Power company. Generally speaking, it is ex-
pected that these systems are characterised by a power rating in the
range 40–1000 MW, a storage capacity of 8.5–200 MWh, a round-trip
efficiency in the range 75–80% and a lifetime higher than 30 years.
Regarding the energy density and the power density, they are expected
in the range 0.5–1.5 W h/l (or 0.5–1.5 W h/kg) and 3.13 W/l (or
3.13 W/kg), respectively.
Clearly, compared to PHS, this storage system does not require a
constant water flow because it is a closed-loop system in which water is
recirculated. In addition, it does not require a waterfall because the
deep storage shaft and the return pipe are man-made channels.
However, in the Authors’ opinion, also Gravity Power Module unit
needs to be placed in a site with a stable morphology like PHS and
CAES. In addition, due to system complexity, the investment costs
(1000$/kW) are comparable with the PHS (600–2000$/kW) and the
CAES (400–2000$/kW) ones.
Another kind of GES is the one proposed by Energy Cache [37]. The
idea is to use the off-peak power to move buckets of gravel from a low
to a high elevation (see Fig. 4). Obviously, when power is needed, the
buckets are released back from the top to the bottom. The expected
efficiency is around 90%.
A demonstration plant has been built in California with a rated
power of 50 kW [37]. The working principle is really simple but there is
the need of a sufficiently high hill. Therefore, as PHS and CAES, the
system requires a rather large drop between the top and the bottom part
of the storage unit.
The last type of GES system is called “Advanced Rail Energy
Storage” (ARES) and has been developed by ARES company [38]. The
idea is to load train wagons with concrete blocks (see Fig. 5). During
low demand hours, the train wagons is move from the bottom to the top
of a hill or a mountain. Then, when power is needed, the wagons
charged with the concrete blocks run down from the top to the bottom
of the hill/mountain under gravity and generate electricity.
As for the other GES systems, the ARES power rating and round-trip
efficiency are in the range 100–3000 MW and 75–86%, while the life-
time and the capital cost are expected, respectively, higher than
305
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
40 years and equal to 800$/kW. Again, ARES suffers of the same to-
pological constrains of PHS and CAES.
Liquid Air Energy Storage is another emerging large-scale storage
technology which implies to store electrical energy in the form of li-
quefied air. As in CAES technology, the first step of the charging phase
consists on the air compression. Then, the pressurized air is liquefied
and stoked in thermally isolated man-made vessels/tanks/containers. A
sketch of the LAES process is depicted in Fig. 6. During discharge, the
liquid air is heated up using a heat exchanger. During this process, the
pressure is increased. Then, the high pressure air is used to drive an
expansion machine mechanically connected to the electric generator.
The main advantages of LAES are the high energy density (50 W h/l
or 97–210 W h/kg) and the low volume occupied by the liquid air
compared to the gaseous one (1/700). This feature guarantees to
drastically reduce the storage vessels volume. In fact, a LAES plant can
be up to 12 and up to 140 times smaller than a CAES and a PHS plant,
respectively [10].
Regarding the round-trip efficiency, the actual value is in the range
40–50%, but significant improvements can be achieved when the
charging phase waste heat is recovered and used during delivery. In this
case, the round-trip efficiency is expected to be in the range between 70
and 85%.
Based on available calculation, it is expected that LAES plants can
be built with a nameplate power in the range from 0.35 to 100 MW, a
storage capacity of 10–1000 MWh and a lifetime of 20–40 years.
The main LAES drawback is the high cost: 900–2000$/kW and
260–530$/kWh. Regarding the response time, it is expected in the
range 5–10 min while the self-discharge rate is very small. Though,
based on tests conducted on the demonstration plant built up by
Highview Power Storage [40] in Slough (UK), it is expected significant
technological improvements in the near future.
Further informations about the LAES technology can be found in,
e.g., [41–43] while a comparison between LAES and CAES technologies
is given in [44].
Hydrogen Energy Storage is the most convenient way to store off-peak
electricity when long term season-to-season storage is needed. In a
nutshell, during the charging phase, water is transformed in hydrogen
using the electrolysis process. The produced hydrogen can be stored in
gaseous or liquid form as well as using metal hydrides or carbon na-
nostructures [45]. When power is needed, the stored hydrogen can be
used in a fuel cell or directly burnt in, e.g., gas turbine unit.
Several works are available in the scientific literature (see, e.g.,
[46–52]), but all of them underline the need of developing safer and
Fig. 3. Sketch of a Gravity Power Module [36].
A. Benato, A. Stoppato Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315

efficient hydrogen storage system with acceptable volumetric energy

Fig. 4. Energy Cache 50 kW Gravity Energy Storage demonstration plant located in
California [37].
Fig. 5. Train wagon used in the Advanced Rail Energy Storage demonstration plant [38].
densities. For this reason, hydrogen storage could become economically
feasible around 2030 [53]. It is expected that this technology has a
power rate comprises between 0.1 and 1000 MW, a storage capacity in
the range 100–1000 MWh, an energy density in the range
500–3000 W h/l (or 800–10000 W h/kg), a power density higher than
500 W/kg (or 500 W/l), a round-trip efficiency of 20–50% and a life-
time comprises between 5 and 30 years. The capital costs are expected
in the range 1900–10000$/kW while the price per stored energy unit
and the price per cycle can be estimated in the range 1–10$/kWh and
6000–20000$/kWh per cycle, respectively. The expected self-discharge
rate is really small while the estimated cycle life is approximately equal
to 1000 cycles.
Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage or Pumped Heat Energy Storage is
the last in-developing storage technology suitable for large-scale ES
applications. PTES is based on a high temperature heat pump cycle,
which transforms the off-peak electricity into thermal energy and stores
it inside two man-made thermally isolated vessels: one hot and one
cold. During delivery, a thermal engine cycle is adopted to convert the
stored thermal energy back into electrical energy.
The working fluid is a gaseous medium, air or argon, while elec-
tricity is stored as sensible heat using cheap and solid materials like
concrete, gravel or other common minerals.
Compared to CAES and PHS, PTES is characterised by higher energy
density (110–170 W h/l or 50–140 W h/kg), low self-discharge rate (1
%/day), no geographical limitations and small installation footprint. It
uses an inert gas as working fluid and cheap storage materials.
Therefore, PTES is characterised by low capital costs: 600$/kW and
60$/kWh. It does not suffer of low cycle life like flow batteries and the
expected round-trip efficiency (70–80%) and lifetime (25–30 year) are
very good. In additions, PTES units can be integrated in fossil-fuelled
thermal power plant to reduce cycling operation, fast start up and
overnight shut downs.
For these reasons and being the power rating and the storage ca-
pacity in the range 0.5–10 MW (or larger) and 0.5–60 MWh (or larger),
the PTES is considered one of the most promising large-scale energy

Fig. 6. LAES process working principle [39].

306
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
storage technology. However, only few works are actually available on
this topic. At this purpose, in Section 3 the Authors present a survey of
the works on PTES technology with the aim of understanding the cur-
rent state of the art, the future developments and the possible in-
tegration in the energy markets.
3. The PTES technology
PTES is a technology which stores the electricity in the form of heat.
The heat can be stored in the form of sensible or latent heat [54,55]. In
the first case, the thermal energy is stored in the change of the storage
medium temperature consequences of a variation in the internal energy
while, in latent heat storage, the thermal energy is stored as the phase
change latent heat of some media. Solid or liquid media are usually
good for sensible heat storage while media able to change the phase
from solid to liquid or from liquid to vapour are suitable for latent heat
storage.
Sensible heat storage which employs solid media like concrete,
rocks or sand is the most inexpensive, safety and easy way to store
thermal energy. For this reason, in literature a large number of studies
on this topic can be found [56–61,54,55,62,63].
Despite the way of storing heat, in a PTES system, the off-peak
electricity is converted into heat using a high temperature heat pump
and stores in two man-made tanks. This process is called “storing
phase”. Then, the conversion of the stored heat into electricity is done
by means of a heat engine. This phase is usually called “delivering” or
“discharging” phase.
Since 1979, several patents have been registered with different
types of PTES configurations (e.g. [64–71]) while only a reduce number
of theoretical works have been published in the scientific literature.
Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage or Pumped Heat Energy
Storage can be categorised according to their thermodynamic cycle and
working fluid: closed Brayton cycle or reversible Brayton cycle is the
first plant arrangement. It uses a single phase gas like air or argon and it
is equipped with a low and a high pressure and temperature reservoirs.
The electricity is stocked as sensible heat in these reservoirs.
Transcritical Organic Rankine cycle using CO2 as working fluid and
equipped with ice and pressurised water storages are the second type,
while the third one is called Compressed Heat Energy Storage system. In
the following, the available works on these plant types are analysed.
After that, a brief overview of the methods adopted to predict the
temperature distribution of the gaseous fluid and the solid medium
which compose the storage reservoirs are presented.
3.1. Brayton PTES systems
In 2010, Desrues et al. [72] were the first to present an investigation
on a pumped thermal energy storage system for large scale electric
applications based on Brayton cycle. The system works as a high tem-
perature heat pump cycle during charging phase. It converts electricity
into thermal energy and stores it inside two large man-made tanks. A
thermal engine cycle is then used to convert the stored thermal energy
into electricity during the delivery phase.
The proposed plant is constituted by two compressor/turbine pairs,
two man-made storage vessels and two heat exchangers. Compressors
and turbines are turbomachinery based devices. During changing
phase, the system uses one compressor/turbine pair while, during de-
livery period, the other compressor/turbine pair is used to flow the
working fluid. A sketch of the plant scheme proposed by Desrues et al.
[72] is depicted in Fig. 7.
The storage reservoirs are thermally insulated artificial tanks in
which a refractory material is used as storage material. The heat is
stored as sensible heat and the storage are thermally stratified (constant
temperature) while the adopted working fluid is Argon.
In their work, Desrues et al. [72] assumed that the high pressure and
temperature tank is at an initial temperature of 25 °C while the low
307
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
pressure and temperature vessel initial temperature is considered equal
to 500 °C. The total volume of the vessels are 21622 m3 while the cycle
pressures are equal to 4.6 bar and 1 bar, respectively.
During the charge, argon is compressed in the hot turbomachine
and reaches the temperature of 1000 °C and the pressure of 4.6 bar.
Then, the hot argon enters into the hot tank and heats up the refractory
material from 25 °C to 1000 °C. At the same time, the cold tank is cooled
down from its initial temperature (equal to 500 °C) to −70 °C. The hot
heat exchanger placed before the hot turbomachine and the cold heat
exchanger placed before the cold turbomachine are used to maintain
the hot and the cold turbomachine inlet temperatures equal to 500 °C
and 25 °C, respectively.
Based on the simulations performed with the plant numerical
model, Desrues et al. [72] estimated a plant storage capacity equal to
602.6 MWh and a charging and delivering times equal to 6 h and 3 min
and 5 h 52 min, respectively. Desrues et al. [72] computed also the
storage efficiency (66.7%) but concluded that the model needs to be
validated using a test rig with sufficiently large storage vessels.
In the same period of Desrues et al. [72], also Howes [73] worked
on the conceptualization of a pumped heat electricity storage device
starting from the investigations done in 1833 by John Ericsson. The
proposed plant arrangement, depicted in Fig. 8, is similar to the one
showed in Fig. 7 but, in this case, the adopted machines (compressor
and turbine) are reciprocating devices.
Hiwes [73] firstly investigated the thermodynamic aspects of the
idealized heat pump. Then, a first prototype has been designed and
built with the aim of investigating the valve pressure losses and the heat
transfer process during the compression and the expansion phase. A
peculiarity of the prototype is the integration of the heat exchangers
into the piston of the reciprocating machine.
As presented in [73], this device consist of a single double-acting
cylinder with valves at both ends of the cylinder and a piston for a
uniflow configuration. The cold cylinder is smaller than the hot one for
equal mass flow. Despite the poor results obtained during the experi-
mental campaign on this machine, a second and a third prototypes of
the system have been built to investigate the loss which occurs during
the compression and the expansion processes. Based on the experi-
mental investigations performed on these prototypes, Howes [73] de-
veloped a hypothetical 2 MW PTES system with 16 MWh of storage. The
estimated ground foot print is 17 m by 7 m while the compressor and
the turbine machines are included in a unique four cylinder machine in
Fig. 7. Sketch of the plant scheme proposed by Desrues et al. [72].
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
Fig. 8. Simplified sketch of the plant scheme proposed by Howes [73].
which the compression and expansion process is performed in two
stages. The energy storage plant works with argon as working fluid with
a mass flow rate of 12.56 kg/s. The temperature and pressure in the hot
storage reach 500 ° C and 12.13 bar while in the cold tank pressure and
temperature are equal to 1.0135 bar and −166 °C, respectively. At the
end of the work, Howes [73] claimed that pumped heat energy storage
has a great potential because it can offer efficient and low cost storage
units.
The PTES arrangement proposed by Desrues et al. [72] has also been
investigated from other researchers in [74–80].
White [74] analysed the thermodynamic losses which occurs in the
PTES thermal reservoirs. The plant scheme is depicted in Fig. 9. The
plant uses argon as working fluid while the hot and cold reservoirs store
the electricity as sensible heat. Each reservoir is composed by a packed
bed of a solid storage made of gravel. The hot and the cold storage
temperatures are assumed equal to 773 K and 123 K, respectively.
The reservoirs losses can be grouped in two categories: thermal and
pressure losses. The first one are mainly associated to irreversible heat
transfer while pressure losses are caused by frictional effects. After the
definition of the governing equations, White [74] developed correla-
tions to estimate these losses. The major result of the investigation is
that thermal and pressure losses are not negligible but not really high.
So, these losses do not preclude the possibility of integrating thermal
storages into the PTES scheme.
Based on the promising results obtained in [74], White and his re-
search team performed a thermodynamic analysis of the entire pumped
thermal electricity storage unit [75]. The study aimed at evaluating the
sources of irreversibility in a PTES system and thier impact on energy
density, power density and round-trip efficiency. As in the previous
study, the plant scheme comprises a compressor, an expander, two heat
exchangers and two thermal reservoirs. The two heat exchangers are
used to reject the heat from the cycle while the two thermal storages,
one hot and one cold, are used to store the off-peak electricity as sen-
sible heat. The adopted working fluid is, as in previous studies [72,74],
argon.
To compute the irreversibilities, White et al. [75] built a simplified
mathematical model of the PTES system. The model has been used to
estimate the plant operating conditions and how the irreversibilites
affect the plant performance, the round-trip efficiency and the storage
density. The investigations found that the round-trip efficiency and the
storage density increase with the compressor temperature ratio. But,
adopting high temperature ratios imply high pressure ratios; working
conditions which require reservoirs made with high cost materials. The
308
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
analysis also found that a higher round-trip efficiency can be obtained
using reciprocating devices instead of turbomachinery-based machines.
Finally, White et al. [75] claimed that reducing the ratio between the
hot and the cold temperatures during the discharge can mitigate the
effects of the compression and the expansion irreversibility. In addition,
this temperature ratio reduction implies an increment of the power and
energy density.
In other works, the same research group, deeply investigate the
effects which occurred in the thermal reservoir made of packed-beds
[76,80] and how to design this fundamental component [79]. In ad-
dition, they performed a parametric study and a plant optimisation of a
PTES in which also a buffer vessel has been included [77,78] (see
Fig. 10).
In this work, McTigue et al. [77] built the PTES mathematical model
using the steady flow approach coupled with the Schumann-style
model. The first one is used to model the compressor and the expander
while the second one is used to predict the behaviour of the reservoirs.
The analysis considered a PTES system characterised by a storage
capacity of 16 MWh which adopts argon as working fluid. Reservoirs
have a volume of 71 m3 (hot) and 117 m3 (cold) while the cycle works
between temperatures and pressures equal to 10.5 bar and 505 °C (hot
part of the cycle) and 1.05 bar and −150 °C (cold part of the cycle).
Fe3O4 is used as storage material while a packed bed with a void
fraction equal to 0.35 is assumed to store the heat. As said, a buffer tank
has also been included into the cycle to allow the fluid expansion.
The investigation reveals that the losses which occur in the com-
pressor and in the expander affect the round-trip efficiency. In addition,
being pressure drops and heat transfer irreversibilities in the reservoirs
really small, the development of the PTES technology is only linked to
the ability of developing high efficiency compressor and expander
machines.
Thess [81] built a model of the PTES system using the finite time
thermodynamic model with the aim of theoretically analysing the
thermodynamic efficiency of the system. Results show that the PTES
efficiency is a function of the storage temperature at the maximum
output power.
Ni and Caram [82] analysed the relationship between the round trip
efficiency and the other PTES system parameters using the exponential
matrix method. Being the plant efficiency affected by the storages
performance and the operation characteristics of the compressor and
the turbine, dimensionless numbers have been developed with the aim
Fig. 9. Sketch of the plant scheme adopted by White [74].
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
Fig. 10. Sketch of the plant scheme proposed by McTigue et al. [77].
of describing the overall process operation. Results show that the
overall process operation can be described by temperature difference
representing the energy stored per unit heat capacity, the storage bed
utilization ratio and the round trip efficiency.
Also Guo et al. [83] analysed the performance of a PTES with the
aim of deriving the relationship between the round-trip efficiency and
the output power. The investigation results reveal that the derived
equations can be really useful during both design and management of a
PTES system.
In recent studies, Benato [84] and Benato and Stoppato [85] pre-
sented a PTES configuration (see Fig. 11) in which an electric heater is
used to convert off-peak electricity into thermal energy, air is used as
working fluid and only a heat exchanger is adopted to maintain the
expander inlet temperature at its design value. During the delivery
phase, no heat exchangers are used. The system has been design with
the characteristics of commercially available compressor and expander
devices. Five types of storage material, two bed material shapes and
different maximum plant temperature have been tested with the aim of
Fig. 11. Sketch of the plant schemes developed by Benato [84]: (a) Charge, (b) Discharge.
309
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
evaluating their influence on the plant performance and cost. Despite
the low round trip efficiency, the proposed plant arrangement is char-
acterised by an energy density in the range 70–430 kWh/m3 and a
specific costs in the range 50–180 Euro/kWh.
Finally, Guo et al. [86] compared the performance of pumped
thermal and pumped cryogenic electricity storage systems using the
finite time thermodynamic approach. The study found the optimal
operating region of both systems and the parameters which affect their
efficiency.
3.2. Transcritical rankine PTES systems
This kind of PTES systems have firstly attracted the attention of ABB
company and, then, of several researchers around the world [87].
Mercangöz et al. [88] observed that conventional PTES arrange-
ment which is based on an argon Brayton cycle needs large storages;
regenerators which are affected by losses. Therefore, they proposed an
alternative scheme called ElectroThermal Energy Storage (ETES) in
which a transcritical CO2 cycle is adopted with the aim of improving
the plant round-trip efficiency. In this case, the storage system is con-
stituted by four hot storage reservoirs and four ice storage tanks. With a
maximum storage temperature of 123 °C, the plant reaches a round trip
efficiency of 53%.
Subsequently, using the pinch analysis approach described in
[89,90], Morandin et al. [91,92] optimised different transcritical CO2
cycles. The basic scheme is composed by a hot and a cold side. The hot
side is constituted by one or more hot sensible heat storages which
works with temperature higher than 100 °C. During the charge the heat
pump cycle is used to heat the water contained into the tanks at high
temperature while, during discharging period, the hot water is used to
feed the thermal engine cycle. In the cold side, the latent heat storages
are obtained by storing salt-water ice at a temperature in the range from
0 °C to −21.2 °C. The transcritical CO2 cycle is used to better match the
thermal profiles of the hot and cold storages. A sketch of the system is
depicted in Fig. 12.
The optimisation process produces a system able to reach a round
trip efficiency of 60% when eight hot storage reservoirs and a turbine
inlet temperature of approximately 177 °C. As remarked by Morandin
et al. [91], an additional 2% improvement in the efficiency can be
reached adding a superheat at the compressor suction section.
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
Fig. 12. Sketch of the plant schemes developed by Morandin et al. [91]: (a) Charge, (b) Discharge.
Fig. 13. Sketch of the plant scheme proposed by Peterson [99].
However, to obtain this high efficiency, an ammonia cycle needs to be
integrated during the charging phase in order to improve the cold side
thermal integration.
In a later study, Morandin et al. [93] performed also a thermo-
economic optimisation of a system composed by a transcritical CO2
cycles and water and salt-water ice storages. The plant charge and
discharge power is equal to 50 MW while the charge and discharge time
is 2 h. The study found that the cycle pressures are the variable that
affect the system performance and cost while the optimal configuration
includes two fully independent systems of hot water storage vessels
above and below the ambient temperature, an air cooling at the heat
pump side and a superheating before the CO2 heat pump.
As remarked by Baik et al. [94], in the above mentioned works, heat
exchangers pressure drops and heat transfer coefficients are considered
constant. Therefore, to better predict the system performance, Baik
et al. [94] deeply discretized the heat exchangers and adopted
310
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
correlations to predict the heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops
in the heat exchangers. They also assumed that the charging and de-
livery process shared the heat exchangers. The key result of the in-
vestigation is the fact that the maximisation of the round trip efficiency
can be obtained only if the temperature of the low temperature hot
storage tank has been optimized.
In [95], Ayachi et al. proposed to use the transcritical CO2 cycle and
the ground heat storage while in [96] an electricity storage system
based on CO2 transcritical cycles and geothermal heat exchangers is
analysed and the plant performance evaluated.
Finally, Ayachi et al. [97] evaluated the effects of a large spread of
the CO2 Transcritical Heat-Pump and Power Cycles in Massive Elec-
tricity Storage System.
A different concept of Transcritical Rankine PTES has been pro-
posed by Kim et al. [98]. In this work, Kim et al. examined a cycle
called isothermal transcritical CO2 cycle in which the compression and
the expansion are isothermal. The proposed system reaches a round trip
efficiency higher than 65.5% when the temperature of the hot storage
tank is 180 °C while its value becomes close to 62.5% when the tem-
perature of the hot storage tank is 130 °C. As suggested by Kim et al.
[98], in order to reach high round trip efficiency it is necessary to adopt
large hot storage vessel because only in this way the storage has a large
water mass and lower temperature drop in the tank.
Another modification of the standard PTES is the so called
Thermally Integrated PTES. The system is powered by both electrical
and thermal energy and is able to achieve a higher electrical efficiency
of a standard PTES configuration [99]. As depicted in Fig. 13, the
system is composed by a sensible heat storage tank, a heat exchanger
for ambient temperature energy exchange, a compressor/expander, a
cold storage tank made of latent heat storage material a pump. The
pump is mechanically coupled with an electric motor and it is used to
pressurize or depressurize the liquid working fluid (in the analysed case
it is propane) while the compressor/expander is linked with a motor/
generator machine. This component can adsorb or deliver electricity
from or for the electric grid. The evaporation and condensation pressure
of the fluid is set equal to 50 °C while the cold storage temperature is
assumed equal to −15 °C.
During the system charging phase, a boiling refrigerant at sub-am-
bient temperatures is used to freeze the latent heat storage material
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
using compressors driven by electrical energy. During the discharging
phase, the latent heat is used to generate electricity. The investigation
results show that the round trip efficiency can reach values in the range
50–60% using a common refrigerant as working medium.
An updated version of the system proposed by Peterson [99] has
been developed by [100]. In their proposal the system is composed by a
vapour compression heat pump which is used during the charge of the
thermal energy storage and by an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) which
is used to recover the stored heat. A diagram of the proposed plant
scheme is depicted in Fig. 14.
Seventeen working fluids (R11, R141b, R1233zd(E), ammonia,
Isobutan, SES36, etc.) and different temperatures of the hot reservoir
and of the heat source have been considered during the investigation.
Results show that the maximum round trip efficiency (equal to 1.3) is
reached with a heat source temperature of 110 °C and adopting
R1233zd(E) as working fluid. Despite the high round trip efficiency,
this kind of PTES seams to be suitable for little to medium capacity
(5–10 MWh) due to its plant complexity.
3.3. Compressed Heat Energy STorage system
The last modification of the PTES system which has been proposed
is the so called Compressed Heat Energy STorage (CHEST) [101]. The
system is a PTES based on a conventional steam Rankine cycle (see
Fig. 15).
During the charge, the water at low pressure is evaporated using the
heat coming from a low temperature source as a heat pump or a re-
frigeration cycle. After the compression process, the high pressure
steam releases its energy in a thermal storage reservoir. Then, in this
storage, the steam is condensed and the condensate is cooled down to
the saturation temperature of the evaporation process. During the de-
livery phase, the heat released by the storage system is used to generate
steam for moving the steam turbine. After the expansion process, the
steam is condensed. The cycle is closed because the condensate is de-
livered to the preheating section of the storage unit. Based on the
performed analysis, the minimum plant size should be 5–10 MW while
charge/discharge duration should be in the range of 6–10 h. However,
it in important to remember that the size needs to be determined
considering both economic aspects and charge/discharge durations.
Considerations about the scheme advantages demonstrate that CHEST
is suitable for both high and low temperature heat sources. Another
interesting characteristic of CHEST is the possibility of being integrated
in conventional steam power plants with the aim of improving their
flexibility. This need of integrating storage in conventional power
plants to increase their flexibility and availability is another hot re-
search topic (see, e.g., [102–104]).
3.4. Sensible and latent heat thermal storage: Materials and modelling
As previously said, thermal energy storage or heat and cold storage,
allows to store heat or cold for a later use. In order to retrieve the heat
or cold after some time, the storing method needs to be reversible. The
possible methods can be divided into chemical and physical processes.
Physical processes can be also subdivided in sensible (SH-TES) and la-
tent (LH-TES) heat storage (solid–liquid, liquid–vapour and solid–solid
phase change).
In sensible heat storage, heat is stored by increasing the storage
medium temperature while in latent heat storage systems the energy is
stored in phase change materials. In particular, the heat is stored when
the material changes its phase from solid to liquid. When the storage
processes involve chemical reactions, the adopted storage is called
ThermoChemical Energy Storage (TCES).
Based on available works, Gallo et al. [10] computed that SH-TES
can be built with a power ranging between 0.001 and 10 MWth , while
the capital cost can be estimated in the range 3400–4500$/kW. The
energy density, the price per energy unit stored and the round-trip
311
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
efficiency are in the range 10–50 Wth h/kg, 0.1–10$/kWh and 50–90%.
Latent heat storage units and TCES systems can be built with smaller
power: for LH-TES in the range between 0.001 and 1 MWth while for
TCES the power ranging between 0.01 and 1 MWth , respectively. The
energy density and the price per energy unit stored are, for LH-TES, in
the range 50–150 Wth h/kg and 10–50$/kWh, while for TCES, they are
120–250 Wth h/kg and 8–100$/kWh, respectively. Comparing LH-TES
and TCES with SH-TES, it is possible to notice that the capital cost is
higher in the case of LH-TES (6000–15000$/kW) and lower for TCES
(1000–3000$/kW).
Despite these data, in PTES systems, the storage reservoirs are man-
made tanks in which the electricity is stored as sensible or latent heat.
In sensible heat storages, gaseous substances are used as working
fluid. Then, as suggested by Singh et al. [105], the most suitable storage
unit is a packed bed system.
A packed bed storage system consists of loosely packed solid ma-
terial through which the heat transport fluid is circulated. As under-
lined by Coutier and Farber [106] in 1982, packed bed generally re-
presents the most suitable and widely adopted energy storage unit for
air based solar systems. Therefore, a packed bed storage is a well-es-
tablished technology.
Generally speaking, the optimum size of the storage system is a
function of several parameters such as storage temperature and mate-
rial, storage heat losses and storage container cost, heat exchangers,
cost of auxiliary energy and operating conditions [105]. Despite the
above mentioned parameters are fundamental, in sensible heat storage,
the real most import aspect is the need of adopting an inexpensive, non-
toxic, non-flammable, with high thermal diffusivity and good con-
ductive solid storage medium. For this reason, materials like rocks,
metals, concrete, sand and brick are the most adopted because they can
be used for low as well as high temperature thermal energy storage
[107].
In literature, several mathematical models have been proposed to
predict the thermal performance of packed beds. The first model was
presented by Schumann [108], who initially studied the behaviour of a
liquid at uniform temperature which passes lengthwise a right, porous
prism, also initially at another uniform temperature. After that, he
substituted the liquid with a gas. Obviously, the problem became much
more complicated but, he concluded that a one-dimensional two phase
model for the packed bed system by ignoring the thermal capacity of
the fluid, axial conductivity in the fluid and axial conductivity in the
bed, could provide useful results. However, the governing equations
proposed by Schumann were computationally expensive to solve.
Therefore, Beckman and Duffie [109], Lilleleht et al. [110] and Mumma
and Marvin [111] made attempt to solve the governing equations for
the packed bed by finite difference methods. Note that, being the
packed bed made of large size elements, the most used modelling ap-
proach is the so-called Mumma and Marvin model reported by Howell
Fig. 14. Sketch of the conceptual diagram of the storage plant proposed by Frate et al.
[100].
A. Benato, A. Stoppato Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315

Fig. 15. Sketch of the plant schemes proposed by Steinmann [101]: (a) Charge layout composed by an ammonia cycle for low temperature compression and a water cycle for high
temperature compression, (b) Discharge layout composed by a water Rankine cycle.

Table 1 literature depending on the container geometry and the adopted phase
Energy density, specific costs, round-trip efficiency and the lifetime of different energy change material. All heat storage problems are dynamic problems;
storage systems [8,10,12,23,75,81,125–142].
therefore, it is also essential to find the solution in time. The simplest
Energy storage Energy Price per energy Round trip Lifetime model to solve the heat transfer problem has been proposed, in 1981,
technology density [Wh/ unit stored efficiency [%] [years] by Stefan [118]. The model is very useful and it is widely adopted to
l] [$/kWh] test the 1 or 3-dimensional models built with commercial software.
These models are able to show a qualitative trend of the heat trans-
PHS 0.5–1.5 5–100 65–87 30–60
GES 0.5–1.5 N/A 70–86 30–40
ferred due to the absence of accurate data of the density, viscosity, and
CAES 3–12 2–200 40–95 20–60 enthalpy of each phase change material as a function of the tempera-
LAES 50 260–530 40–85 20–40 ture. Therefore, despite the use of complex and accurate modelling
Flow Batteries 16–60 120–1000 57–85 5–15 software, the lack of accurate experimental data causes significant un-
Hydrogen 500–3000 1–10 20–50 5–30
certainties in the numerical results.
PTES 110–170 60 70–80 25–30
For the reader interested in analytical, numerical and experimental
work on this topic, please referred to, e.g., [117–124].
et al. [112]. For brevity, the Authors do not report the equations which
describe the methods. Therefore, for more details, please referred to 4. Discussion and Conclusions
[109–116] while, for a clear overview of the works available on packed
bed mathematical modelling or experimental testing see, e.g., [105]. Based on the analysed works and the data reported in Table 1, it is
The term “latent heat” describes the heat of solid–solid, solid–liquid, possible to claim that Pumped Hydro Storage is the most widespread
and liquid–vapour phase changes. However, “latent heat storage” and large-scale energy storage technology while Compressed Air energy
“phase change material” are terms widely used only for solid–liquid Storage can be considered its actual leading competitor while Flow
phase changes and not for solid–solid or liquid–vapour phase changes Batteries can become a useful way of storing large quantity of energy
[117]. only in the near future. Unfortunately, PHS requires a particular mor-
In a latent heat storage, the change of phase from solid to liquid or phology of the installation site, a sufficiently high water fall and a
vice versa is really advantageous because the melting or the solidifi- regular water flow rate, while CAES requires a particular morphology of
cation occur at a constant temperature called melting temperature. the installation site and a natural gas stream. Flow batteries do not
Being the melting temperature constant, the latent heat storage allows require particular morphology of the installation site and are char-
the stabilization of the temperature. In addition, the melting process is acterised by a high energy density compared to PHS and CAES but they
characterized by a small volume change, usually less than 10%. suffer of low lifetime (see Table 1). Therefore, to properly match the
In general, phase change materials need to be characterised by demand in an electric system composed by a large number of variable
suitable phase change temperature, large phase change enthalpy, re- and intermittent power plants fed by wind and solar, there is the need
producible phase change (also called cycling stability), little sub- of developing large-scale energy storage which do not suffer of geo-
cooling, good thermal conductivity, low vapour pressure, small volume graphical constrains, low lifetime or round-trip efficiency. In this sce-
change, chemical stability, high compatibility with other materials, low nario, Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage or Pumped Heat Energy
price and good recyclability. Storage constitutes a valid and really promising alternative to PHS,
By far, the best phase change material is water. It is the most CAES, FBs, GES, LAES and Hydrogen storage. With the aim of under-
adopted material for cold storage. For temperatures below 0 °C, water- standing the actual state of development, in the present work, the Au-
salt solutions with a eutectic composition are commonly used while, in thors present firstly an overview of the available and in-developing
the temperature range from 0 to 150 °C, paraffins, fatty acids, sugar large scale storage technologies. Then, they focus the attention on the
alcohols and salt hydrates are used. For temperature higher than 150 °C, PTES technology. Until now, three PTES arrangements have been pro-
different type of salts and their mixtures are adopted. posed and studied. These systems can be grouped based on their ther-
Regarding the modellization efforts, several works are available in modynamic cycle and working fluid: reversible Brayton cycles,

312
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
reversible transcritical organic Rankine cycles and Compressed Heat
Energy Storage systems. Reversible Brayton cycles are equipped with a
hot and a cold sensible heat storage tanks and use a supercritical single
phase gas (air or argon) as working fluid. Reversible transcritical or-
ganic Rankine cycles usually adopt supercritical CO2 as working fluid
and are equipped with one or more ice and pressurised water storage
vessels while CHEST systems use a conventional steam Rankine cycle.
The system is equipped with a high temperature latent heat energy
storage made of vessels while the low temperature storage is the am-
bient environment. Based on the analysed works, the plant arrangement
based on the reversible Brayton PTES cycle is the most suitable for
large-scale energy storage applications due to its layout simplicity and
plant investment cost. Comparison among PHS, CAES, batteries and
PTES configurations show that the PTES is able to compete with the
other large scale energy storage technologies in term of specific cost
and energy density. In addition, PTES can be built with already avail-
able components taking from, e.g., underutilized thermal power units
and does not present geographical limitations because the storage
vessels are thermally insulated man-made tanks and have higher cycle
life than flow batteries.
References
[1] A. Desideri, S. Gusev, M. Van den Broek, V. Lemort, S. Quoilin, Experimental
comparison of organic fluids for low temperature orc (organic rankine cycle)
systems for waste heat recovery applications, Energy 97 (2016) 460–469, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.012.
[2] TERNA. Dati statistici. 2017. Available on-line athttps://www.terna.it/it-it/
sistemaelettrico/statisticheeprevisioni/datistatistici.aspx (accessed September
2017)
[3] R. Doherty, M. O’malley, A new approach to quantify reserve demand in systems
with significant installed wind capacity, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 20
(2) (2005) 587–595, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846206.
[4] International Energy Agency. Technology roadmap: Energy storage. 2014.
Available online on:www.iea.org (Accessed on October 2017).
[5] International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2016. 2016. Available online
on:www.iea.org (Accessed on October 2017).
[6] S. Hasnain, Review on sustainable thermal energy storage technologies, part i:
heat storage materials and techniques, Energy Conversion and Management 39
(11) (1998) 1127–1138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(98)00025-9.
[7] S. ØVergaard, Issue paper: definition of primary and secondary energy. Statistics
Norway, Oslo 2008.
[8] M. Aneke, M. Wang, Energy storage technologies and real life applications–a state
of the art review, Appl. Energy 179 (2016) 350–377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.06.097.
[9] H. Ibrahim, A. Ilinca, J. Perron, Energy storage systems–characteristics and com-
parisons, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 12 (5) (2008) 1221–1250,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.01.023.
[10] A. Gallo, J. Simões-Moreira, H. Costa, M. Santos, E.M. dos Santos, Energy storage
in the energy transition context: A technology review, Renewable and sustainable
energy reviews 65 (2016) 800–822, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.
028.
[11] A. Stoppato, A. Benato, The importance of energy storage, Energy Storage 4
(2017) 1.
[12] F. Díaz-González, A. Sumper, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, R. Villafáfila-Robles, A review of
energy storage technologies for wind power applications, Renew. Sustainable
Energy Rev. 16 (4) (2012) 2154–2171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.
029.
[13] Energy Australia. The principle of pumped hydro storage.???? URL:http://
theconversation.com/snowy-hydro-gets-a-boost-but-seawater-hydro-could-help-
south-australia-74442.
[14] P. Finn, C. Fitzpatrick, Demand side management of industrial electricity con-
sumption: promoting the use of renewable energy through real-time pricing,
Applied Energy 113 (2014) 11–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.
07.003.
[15] J.P. Deane, B.Ó. Gallachóir, E. McKeogh, Techno-economic review of existing and
new pumped hydro energy storage plant, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 14 (4) (2010) 1293–1302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.015.
[16] B. Steffen, Prospects for pumped-hydro storage in germany, Energy Policy 45
(2012) 420–429, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.052.
[17] S. Rehman, L.M. Al-Hadhrami, M.M. Alam, Pumped hydro energy storage system:
a technological review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015)
586–598, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.040.
[18] E. Barbour, I.G. Wilson, J. Radcliffe, Y. Ding, Y. Li, A review of pumped hydro
energy storage development in significant international electricity markets,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 61 (2016) 421–432, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.019.
[19] Argonne National Laboratory, Compressed air energy storage (caes) in salt ca-
verns, 2009.
313
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
[20] F.R. Kalhammer, T.R. Schneider, Energy storage, Annual Review of Energy 1 (1)
(1976) 311–343.
[21] I. Hadjipaschalis, A. Poullikkas, V. Efthimiou, Overview of current and future
energy storage technologies for electric power applications, Renewable and sus-
tainable energy reviews 13 (6) (2009) 1513–1522, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2008.09.028.
[22] W. Mattick, H. Haddenhorst, O. Weber, Z.S. Stys, Huntorf: the world’s first 290-
mw gas turbine air-storage peaking plant.[compressed air pumped hydro storage],
in: Proc. Am. Power Conf.; (United States); vol. 37. 1975.
[23] H. Chen, T.N. Cong, W. Yang, C. Tan, Y. Li, Y. Ding, Progress in electrical energy
storage system: A critical review, Progress in Natural Science 19 (3) (2009)
291–312, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014.
[24] H. Lund, G. Salgi, The role of compressed air energy storage (caes) in future
sustainable energy systems, Energy conversion and management 50 (5) (2009)
1172–1179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.01.032.
[25] P. Denholm, R. Sioshansi, The value of compressed air energy storage with wind in
transmission-constrained electric power systems, Energy Policy 37 (8) (2009)
3149–3158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.002.
[26] M. Budt, D. Wolf, R. Span, J. Yan, A review on compressed air energy storage:
Basic principles, past milestones and recent developments, Applied Energy 170
(2016) 250–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.108.
[27] G. Venkataramani, P. Parankusam, V. Ramalingam, J. Wang, A review on com-
pressed air energy storage–a pathway for smart grid and polygeneration,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 895–907, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.002.
[28] H. Park, R. Baldick, Integration of compressed air energy storage systems co-lo-
cated with wind resources in the ercot transmission system, International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 90 (2017) 181–189, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijepes.2017.01.021.
[29] Y. Kim, D. Shin, D. Favrat, Operating characteristics of constant-pressure com-
pressed air energy storage (caes) system combined with pumped hydro storage
based on energy and exergy analysis, Energy 36 (10) (2011) 6220–6233, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.040.
[30] K. Divya, J. Østergaard, Battery energy storage technology for power systems-an
overview, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 79 (4) (2009) 511–520, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.epsr.2008.09.017.
[31] G.L. Soloveichik, Battery technologies for large-scale stationary energy storage,
Annual review of chemical and biomolecular engineering 2 (2011) 503–527,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061010-114116.
[32] Battery technologies for energy storage, in: M.A. Abraham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Sustainable Technologies, Elsevier, Oxford, ISBN 978-0-12-804792-7, 2017, pp.
469 – 486, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10154-X.
[33] P. Leung, A.A. Shah, L. Sanz, C. Flox, J. Morante, Q. Xu, et al., Recent develop-
ments in organic redox flow batteries: a critical review, J. Power Sources 360
(2017) 243–283, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.05.057.
[34] A. Whitehead, T. Rabbow, M. Trampert, P. Pokorny, Critical safety features of the
vanadium redox flow battery, J. Power Sources 351 (2017) 1–7, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.03.075.
[35] T. Wang, J. Fu, M. Zheng, Z. Yu, Dynamic control strategy for the electrolyte flow
rate of vanadium redox flow batteries, Applied Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.065.
[36] Gravity Power. Gravity power – grid scale energy storage, 2014,www.
gravitypower.net (Accessed on October 2017).
[37] Energy Cache. Gravel energy storage system funded by Bill Gates, 2012,https://
www.greenoptimistic.com/gravel-energy-storage/#.WhmFYUriZPY (Accessed
October 2017).
[38] ARES. Advanced rail energy storage.????http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/
about-ares-north-america (Accessed in October 2017).
[39] S.M. Schoenung, J.M. Eyer, J.J. Iannucci, S.A. Horgan, Energy storage for a
competitive power market, Annual review of energy and the environment 21 (1)
(1996) 347–370.
[40] Highview Power Storage. ????http://www.highview-power.com/ (Accessed
October 2017).
[41] M. Antonelli, S. Barsali, U. Desideri, R. Giglioli, F. Paganucci, G. Pasini, Liquid air
energy storage: Potential and challenges of hybrid power plants, Applied Energy
194 (2017) 522–529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.091.
[42] X. She, X. Peng, B. Nie, G. Leng, X. Zhang, L. Weng, et al., Enhancement of round
trip efficiency of liquid air energy storage through effective utilization of heat of
compression, Applied Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.
09.102.
[43] M. Antonelli, U. Desideri, R. Giglioli, F. Paganucci, G. Pasini, Liquid air energy
storage: a potential low emissions and efficient storage system, Energy Procedia 88
(2016) 693–697, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.100.
[44] P. Krawczyk, Ł Szabłowski, S. Karellas, E. Kakaras, K. Badyda, Comparative
thermodynamic analysis of compressed air and liquid air energy storage systems,
Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.078.
[45] A. Biris, A. Biris, D. Lupu, D. Buzatu, J. Darsey, M. Muzumder, Use of carbon
nanostructures for hydrogen storage for environmentally safe automotive appli-
cations, Industry Applications Conference, 2004. 39th IAS Annual Meeting.
Conference Record of the 2004 IEEE, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 953–956, , http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/IAS.2004.1348528.
[46] H. Hinds, Hydrogen energy news & views, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 7 (5) (1982) 439–442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(87)90064-4.
[47] Y. Wang, J. Kowal, M. Leuthold, D.U. Sauer, Storage system of renewable energy
generated hydrogen for chemical industry, Energy Procedia 29 (2012) 657–667,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.09.076.
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
[48] X. Xue, S. Wang, X. Zhang, C. Cui, L. Chen, Y. Zhou, et al., Thermodynamic
analysis of a novel liquid air energy storage system, Physics Procedia 67 (2015)
733–738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2015.06.124.
[49] A. Eftekhari, B. Fang, Electrochemical hydrogen storage: Opportunities for fuel
storage, batteries, fuel cells, and supercapacitors, International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.103.
[50] S. Shervani, P. Mukherjee, A. Gupta, G. Mishra, K. Illath, T. Ajithkumar, et al.,
Multi-mode hydrogen storage in nanocontainers, International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 42 (38) (2017) 24256–24262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2017.07.233.
[51] T. Wei, K. Lim, Y. Tseng, S. Chan, A review on the characterization of hydrogen in
hydrogen storage materials, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79
(2017) 1122–1133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.132.
[52] A. Le Duigou, A.G. Bader, J.C. Lanoix, L. Nadau, Relevance and costs of large scale
underground hydrogen storage in france, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 42 (36) (2017) 22987–23003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.
06.239.
[53] F. Klumpp, Comparison of pumped hydro, hydrogen storage and compressed air
energy storage for integrating high shares of renewable energies-potential, cost-
comparison and ranking, Journal of Energy Storage 8 (2016) 119–128, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2016.09.012.
[54] A. Gil, M. Medrano, I. Martorell, A. Lázaro, P. Dolado, B. Zalba, et al., State of the
art on high temperature thermal energy storage for power generation. part 1 –
concepts, materials and modellization, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 14 (1) (2010) 31–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.035.
[55] M. Medrano, A. Gil, I. Martorell, X. Potau, L.F. Cabeza, State of the art on high –
temperature thermal energy storage for power generation. part 2 – case studies,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (1) (2010) 56–72, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.036.
[56] Y. Reboussin, J. Fourmigué, P. Marty, O. Citti, A numerical approach for the study
of glass furnace regenerators, Applied thermal engineering 25 (14) (2005)
2299–2320, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2004.12.012.
[57] A.F. Regin, S. Solanki, J. Saini, Latent heat thermal energy storage using cylind-
rical capsule: Numerical and experimental investigations, Renewable energy 31
(13) (2006) 2025–2041, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2005.10.011.
[58] V.V. Tyagi, D. Buddhi, Pcm thermal storage in buildings: a state of art, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (6) (2007) 1146–1166, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2005.10.002.
[59] D.S. Sowmy, R.T. Prado, Assessment of energy efficiency in electric storage water
heaters, Energy and Buildings 40 (12) (2008) 2128–2132, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2008.06.007.
[60] R. Kandasamy, X.Q. Wang, A.S. Mujumdar, Transient cooling of electronics using
phase change material (pcm)-based heat sinks, Applied Thermal Engineering 28
(8) (2008) 1047–1057, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.06.
010.
[61] H. El Qarnia, Numerical analysis of a coupled solar collector latent heat storage
unit using various phase change materials for heating the water, Energy
Conversion and Management 50 (2) (2009) 247–254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2017.09.015.
[62] M. Augspurger, H. Udaykumar, Transient multi-day simulations of thermal storage
and heat extraction for a finned solar thermal storage device, Solar Energy 151
(2017) 48–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.002.
[63] G. Mazzucco, G. Xotta, V. Salomoni, M. Giannuzzi, C. Maiorana, Solid thermal
storage with pcm materials. numerical investigations, Applied Thermal
Engineering (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.142.
[64] B. Weissenbach, Thermischer kraftspeicher thermal power storage, 1979,https://
www.google.it/patents/DE2810890A1?cl=en, dE Patent App. DE19,782,810,
890.
[65] B. Wolf, Verfahren zur speicherung und rückgewinnung von energie a method for
storage and recovery of energy, 2007,https://www.google.it/patents/
DE102006007119A1?cl=en, dE Patent App. DE200,610,007,119.
[66] H. Chen, Y. Ding, T. Peters, F. Berger, A method of storing energy and a cryogenic
energy storage system, 2007,https://www.google.it/patents/CA2643742A1?cl=
it, cA Patent App. CA 2,643,742.
[67] J. Ruer, Installation et procedes de stockage et restitution d’energie electrique,
2008,https://www.google.it/patents/CA2686417A1?cl=it, cA Patent App. CA 2,
686,417
[68] J. Macnaghten, J. Howes, Energy storage, 2009,https://www.google.it/patents/
CA2701526A1?cl=it, cA Patent App. CA 2,701,526.
[69] J. Hemrle, M. Mercangoez, C. Ohler, Thermoelectric energy storage system and
method for storing thermoelectric energy, 2010,https://www.google.it/patents/
WO2010020480A2?cl=en, wO Patent App. PCT/EP2009/058,914.
[70] H. Laurberg, Thermal energy storage and recovery arrangement, 2012, US Patent
App, 14/237,885.
[71] A. Samoilov, Method for accumulating, storing and recovering mechanical energy
and apparatus for the implementation thereof (embodiments), 2013,https://www.
google.it/patents/WO2013119145A2?cl=en, wO Patent App. PCT/RU2013/000,
091.
[72] T. Desrues, J. Ruer, P. Marty, J. Fourmigué, A thermal energy storage process for
large scale electric applications, Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (5) (2010)
425–432, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.10.002.
[73] J. Howes, Concept and development of a pumped heat electricity storage device,
Proceedings of the IEEE 100 (2) (2012) 493–503.
[74] A.J. White, Loss analysis of thermal reservoirs for electrical energy storage
schemes, Applied energy 88 (11) (2011) 4150–4159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2011.04.030.
314
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
[75] A. White, G. Parks, C.N. Markides, Thermodynamic analysis of pumped thermal
electricity storage, Applied Thermal Engineering 53 (2) (2013) 291–298, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.03.030.
[76] A. White, J. McTigue, C. Markides, Wave propagation and thermodynamic losses
in packed-bed thermal reservoirs for energy storage, Applied Energy 130 (2014)
648–657, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.02.071.
[77] J.D. McTigue, A.J. White, C.N. Markides, Parametric studies and optimisation of
pumped thermal electricity storage, Applied Energy 137 (2015) 800–811, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.039.
[78] A. White, Electricity storage using a thermal storage scheme, Proceedings of the
International Conference of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering
2010 (ICCMSE-2010), vol. 1642, AIP Publishing, 2015, pp. 421–424.
[79] A.J. White, J.D. McTigue, C.N. Markides, Analysis and optimisation of packed-bed
thermal reservoirs for electricity storage applications, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 230 (7)
(2016) 739–754, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957650916668447.
[80] J. McTigue, A. White, A comparison of radial-flow and axial-flow packed beds for
thermal energy storage, Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 4192–4197, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.893.
[81] A. Thess, Thermodynamic efficiency of pumped heat electricity storage, Physical
review letters 111 (11) (2013) 110602.
[82] F. Ni, H.S. Caram, Analysis of pumped heat electricity storage process using ex-
ponential matrix solutions, Applied Thermal Engineering 84 (2015) 34–44, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.02.046.
[83] J. Guo, L. Cai, J. Chen, Y. Zhou, Performance evaluation and parametric choice
criteria of a brayton pumped thermal electricity storage system, Energy 113
(2016) 693–701, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.080.
[84] A. Benato, Performance and cost evaluation of an innovative pumped thermal
electricity storage power system, Energy 138 (2017) 419–436, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.066.
[85] A. Benato, A. Stoppato, Energy and cost analysis of a new packed bed pumped
thermal electricity storage unit, Journal of Energy Resources Technology 140 (2)
(2018) 020904, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4038197.
[86] J. Guo, L. Cai, J. Chen, Y. Zhou, Performance optimization and comparison of
pumped thermal and pumped cryogenic electricity storage systems, Energy 106
(2016) 260–269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.053.
[87] M. Mercangoez, J. Hemrle, L. Kaufmann, F. Buchter, C. Ohler, Thermoelectric
energy storage with transcritical co2 cycles, ECOS (2011) 4–7.
[88] M. Mercangöz, J. Hemrle, L. Kaufmann, A. Z’Graggen, C. Ohler, Electrothermal
energy storage with transcritical co2 cycles, Energy 45 (1) (2012) 407–415,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.013.
[89] B. Linnhoff, Pinch analysis: a state-of-the-art overview: Techno-economic analysis,
Chemical engineering research & design 71 (5) (1993) 503–522.
[90] J.J. Klemeš, Z. Kravanja, Forty years of heat integration: pinch analysis (pa) and
mathematical programming (mp), Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2 (4)
(2013) 461–474.
[91] M. Morandin, F. Maréchal, M. Mercangöz, F. Buchter, Conceptual design of a
thermo-electrical energy storage system based on heat integration of thermo-
dynamic cycles–part a: Methodology and base case, Energy 45 (1) (2012)
375–385.
[92] M. Morandin, F. Maréchal, M. Mercangöz, F. Buchter, Conceptual design of a
thermo-electrical energy storage system based on heat integration of thermo-
dynamic cycles–part b: Alternative system configurations, Energy 45 (1) (2012)
386–396.
[93] M. Morandin, M. Mercangöz, J. Hemrle, F. Maréchal, D. Favrat, Thermoeconomic
design optimization of a thermo-electric energy storage system based on tran-
scritical co 2 cycles, Energy 58 (2013) 571–587, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2013.05.038.
[94] Y.J. Baik, J. Heo, J. Koo, M. Kim, The effect of storage temperature on the per-
formance of a thermo-electric energy storage using a transcritical co 2 cycle,
Energy 75 (2014) 204–215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.048.
[95] F. Ayachi, N. Tauveron, T. Tartière, S. Colasson, D. Nguyen, Thermo-electric en-
ergy storage involving co 2 transcritical cycles and ground heat storage, Applied
Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 1418–1428, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.07.063.
[96] E. Macchi, C. Colin, T. Tartière, D. Nguyen, N. Tauveron, Thermoelectric energy
storage based on co2 transcritical cycles: ground heat storage modelling, in: 1st
European Seminar on Supercritical CO2 Power Systems, 2016.
[97] F. Ayachi, et al. Inclusion of co2 transcritical heat-pump and power cycles in a
massive electricity storage system, In: 1st European Seminar on Supercritical CO2
Power Systems, 2016b.
[98] Y.M. Kim, D.G. Shin, S.Y. Lee, D. Favrat, Isothermal transcritical co 2 cycles with
tes (thermal energy storage) for electricity storage, Energy 49 (2013) 484–501,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.057.
[99] R.B. Peterson, A concept for storing utility-scale electrical energy in the form of
latent heat, Energy 36 (10) (2011) 6098–6109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2011.08.003.
[100] G.F. Frate, M. Antonelli, U. Desideri, A novel pumped thermal electricity storage
(ptes) system with thermal integration, Applied Thermal Engineering 121 (2017)
1051–1058, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.127.
[101] W.D. Steinmann, The chest (compressed heat energy storage) concept for facility
scale thermo mechanical energy storage, Energy 69 (2014) 543–552, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.049.
[102] M. Jamel, A.A. Rahman, A. Shamsuddin, Advances in the integration of solar
thermal energy with conventional and non-conventional power plants, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 20 (2013) 71–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
A. Benato, A. Stoppato
rser.2012.10.027.
[103] A. Benato, A. Stoppato, A. Mirandola, State-of-the-art and future development of
sensible heat thermal electricity storage systems, Int. J. Heat Technol. 35 (1)
(2017) 244–251, http://dx.doi.org/10.18280/ijht.35Sp0134.
[104] J.D. Wojcik, J. Wang, Technical feasibility study of thermal energy storage in-
tegration into the conventional power plant cycle, Energies 10 (2) (2017) 205,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10020205.
[105] H. Singh, R. Saini, J. Saini, A review on packed bed solar energy storage systems,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (3) (2010) 1059–1069, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.03.032.
[106] J.P. Coutier, E. Farber, Two applications of a numerical approach of heat transfer
process within rock beds, Solar Energy 29 (6) (1982) 451–462.
[107] O.E. Ataer, Storage of thermal energy. Encyclopedia of Life Support, 2006.
[108] T.E. Schumann, Heat transfer: a liquid flowing through a porous prism, Journal of
the Franklin Institute 208 (3) (1929) 405–416.
[109] W.A. Beckman, J.A. Duffie, Solar energy thermal processes, Creset (1974).
[110] L. Lilleleht, J. Beard, F. Iachetta, Proceedings of the workshop on solar energy
storage subsystems for the heating and cooling of buildings, NASA STI Recon
Technical Report N 76 (1975) 30677.
[111] S. Mumma, W. Marvin, A method of simulating the performance of a pebble bed
thermal energy storage and recovery system, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers and American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Heat Transfer
Conference, St. Louis, Mo., Aug. 9–11, ASME, 1976, p. 6.
[112] J.R. Howell, R.B. Bannerot, G.C. Vliet, Solar-thermal energy systems: analysis and
design, Mcgraw-Hill College, 1982.
[113] R. Singh, R. Saini, J. Saini, Simulated performance of packed bed solar energy
storage system having storage material elements of large size–part i, Open Fuels
Energy Sci J 1 (2008) 91–96.
[114] R. Singh, R. Saini, J. Saini, Simulated performance of packed bed solar energy
storage system having storage material elements of large size–part ii, Open Fuels
Energy Sci J 1 (2008) 97–101.
[115] R. Singh, R. Saini, J. Saini, Simulated performance of packed bed solar energy
storage system having storage material elements of large size–part iii, Open Fuels
Energy Sci J 1 (2008) 102–106.
[116] S. Kuravi, J. Trahan, Y. Goswami, C. Jotshi, E. Stefanakos, N. Goel, Investigation of
a high-temperature packed-bed sensible heat thermal energy storage system with
large-sized elements, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 135 (4) (2013) 041008.
[117] H. Mehling, L.F. Cabeza, Heat and cold storage with PCM, Springer, 2008.
[118] J. Stefan, Über die theorie der eisbildung, insbesondere über die eisbildung im
polarmeere, Annalen der Physik 278 (2) (1891) 269–286.
[119] E. Eckert, R. Goldstein, W. Ibele, S. Patankar, T. Simon, P. Strykowski, et al., Heat
transfer–a review of 1994 literature, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 40 (16) (1997) 3729–3804.
[120] H. Hu, S.A. Argyropoulos, Mathematical modelling of solidification and melting: a
review, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 4 (4)
(1996) 371.
[121] K. Ismail, Heat transfer in phase change in simple and complex geometries, in:
I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen (Eds.), Thermal Energy Storage Systems and Application,
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 2002, pp. 337–386.
[122] B. Zalba, J.M. Marin, L.F. Cabeza, H. Mehling, Review on thermal energy storage
with phase change: materials, heat transfer analysis and applications, Applied
thermal engineering 23 (3) (2003) 251–283.
[123] M.M. Farid, A.M. Khudhair, S.A.K. Razack, S. Al-Hallaj, A review on phase change
energy storage: materials and applications, Energy conversion and management
45 (9) (2004) 1597–1615.
315
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 6 (2018) 301–315
[124] X. Huang, G. Alva, Y. Jia, G. Fang, Morphological characterization and applica-
tions of phase change materials in thermal energy storage: A review, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 128–145.
[125] B. Zakeri, S. Syri, Electrical energy storage systems: A comparative life cycle cost
analysis, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 569–596.
[126] H. Zhang, J. Baeyens, G. Cáceres, J. Degrève, Y. Lv, Thermal energy storage:
Recent developments and practical aspects, Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science 53 (2016) 1–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2015.10.003.
[127] H.L. Ferreira, R. Garde, G. Fulli, W. Kling, J.P. Lopes, Characterisation of electrical
energy storage technologies, Energy 53 (2013) 288–298.
[128] P. Agrawal, A. Nourai, L. Markel, R. Fioravanti, P. Gordon, N. Tong, et al.,
Characterization and assessment of novel bulk storage technologies, Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 2011.
[129] M. Akhurst, I. Arbon, M. Ayres, N. Brandon, R. Bruges, S. Cooper, et al. Liquid air
in the energy and transport systems: opportunities for industry and innovation in
the uk, 2013.
[130] B. Stöver, A. Alekseev, C. Stiller, Liquid air energy storage (laes) development
status and benchmarking with other storage technologies, in: Powergen Europe
Conference, Cologne, Germany, June, 2014, pp. 3–5.
[131] X. Luo, J. Wang, M. Dooner, J. Clarke, Overview of current development in
electrical energy storage technologies and the application potential in power
system operation, Applied Energy 137 (2015) 511–536.
[132] H. Chen, Y. Ding, T. Peters, F. Berger, Method of storing energy and a cryogenic
energy storage system, 2016, US Patent App. 15/053,840.
[133] K. Bradbury, Energy storage technology review. Duke University (2010) 1–34.
[134] T. Oshima, M. Kajita, A. Okuno, Development of sodium-sulfur batteries,
International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology 1 (3) (2004) 269–276.
[135] G. Fuchs, B. Lunz, M. Leuthold, D.U. Sauer, Technology overview on electricity
storage: Overview on the potential and on the deployment perspectives of elec-
tricity storage technologies, RWTH Aachen, 2012.
[136] A. Körner, C. Tam, S. Bennett, J. Gagné, Technology Roadmap-hydrogen and Fuel
Cells, International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, 2015.
[137] P. Proctor, Energy storage: a potential game changer and enabler for meeting our
future energy needs, in: Energy Technologies Institute Presentation to the All
Energy Conference, Aberdeen, 2014.
[138] C.N. Markides, The role of pumped and waste heat technologies in a high-effi-
ciency sustainable energy future for the uk, Applied Thermal Engineering 53 (2)
(2013) 197–209.
[139] Alberto Benato, Anna Stoppato, Heat Transfer Fluid and Material Selection for an
Innovative Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage System, Energy 5 (15) (2018)
155–168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.045.
[140] A. Benato, A. Stoppato, “Storage Material Selection for an Innovative Pumped
Thermal Electricity Storage System”, 1st International conference on advances in
energy systems and environmental engineering, ASEE17, 2–5 July 2017, Wroclaw,
Poland, ISBN 978-83-7493-988-1 (Book of Abstarct).
[141] A. Benato, A. Pezzuolo, A. Stoppato, A. Mirandola, “Economic and Energy Analysis
of a Thermal Energy Storage Power System”, In Proceedings of ECOS 2016 − The
29th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulations and
Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, 2016. June 19–23, 2016, Portoroz,
Slovenia.
[142] F. Ferretto, A. Stoppato, N. Destro, A. Benato, “Modelling of the Annual
Performance of a CAES Plant and Relative Economic Analysis”, In Proceedings of
ECOS 2015 − The 28th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost,
Optimization, Simulations and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, June
30–July 3, 2015, Pau, France, ISBN 978-295555390-9.