Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

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

Research papers

Geometry optimisation of an industrial thermocline Thermal Energy

Storage combining exergy, Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle
Cost Analysis
D. Le Roux a, b, *, R. Olivès a, b, P. Neveu b
a
Procédés, Matériaux et Energie Solaire (PROMES-CNRS), UPR 8521, Rambla de la Thermodynamique, 66100 Perpignan, France
b
Université de Perpignan Via Domitia, 52 av. P. Alduy, 66100 Perpignan, France

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

Keywords: Recently, packed-bed storage has been considered as a promising alternative solution for thermal energy storage
Waste heat valorisation especially for waste heat recovery in industrial plants. This work aims to optimise environmental footprint, costs
Thermocline thermal energy storage and exergy efficiency of a thermocline thermal energy storage through two optimisation variables. These vari­
Life cycle assessment
ables describe the tank shape and the particle grain size. Two solid filler materials are compared: machined
Exergy
ceramic and ceramic from fly ashes. The reference storage is an existing industrial high-temperature air/bauxite
Life cycle costs analysis
Multi-criteria optimisation packed-bed storage called Eco-Stock®. A one-dimensional two-phase (fluid and solid) model is used to determine
the energy and exergy performance of the thermocline tank. For the life cycle assessment, four indicators are
selected: cumulative energy demand, global warming potential, abiotic depletion potential and particulate
matter. Finally, a life cycle cost analysis is performed to determine levelised cost of energy used as economic
criterion. This multi-objective problem is solved by the multi-criteria genetic algorithm available on the Matlab®
platform. A Pareto set is obtained, bounded by the single exergy and environmental optimisation solutions. The
economic optimisation is found on the Pareto set, close to the environmental optimal solution. Favouring eco­
nomic performance reduces the environmental footprint of the storage. Despite better exergy performance and
smaller tank volume, the exergy-optimised tank increases environmental impacts and costs due to higher
pumping work. The environmental and economic optimisations lead to stocky tank shapes while a tapered tank is
obtained for the exergy optimisation. According to the TOPSIS method, the economic optimal solution appears to
be the best trade-off for both fillers tested. Despite poorer thermophysical properties, the solution with ceramic
from fly ashes shows similar exergy and economic performance as the machined ceramic solution (more than 96
% of exergy efficiency for 3.1 c€/kWhth), while the environmental footprint is greatly reduced (61 vs 87 ca.year).
This tank has a diameter of 2.6 m and a height of 1.7 m. The particle diameter is 11 mm.

1. Introduction heat for endothermic chemical reactions, as the production of hydrogen

Deployment of renewable energies and energy-efficient industrial
systems requires the use of storage facilities, to manage the intermit­
tency of renewable energies or to valorise industrial waste heat. This is
especially true for the development of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
plants, whose global capacity has significantly increased over the last
decade. As heat can be more easily stored than electricity, integration of
Thermal Energy Storage (TES) in these plants is really promising. It
improves the competitiveness and availability of electricity production
by storing excess thermal energy and releasing it later for delayed
electricity generation [1]. Another possibility is to directly use the stored
[2] or syngas [3] by solar methane reforming for use as motor fuel.
These heat can also be used in cement production plants [4], glass fac­
tories [5], metallurgical industries [6]. TES can therefore boost the
deployment of renewable energies, as can be seen in the CSP plants.
Almost all new CSP plants integrate a storage system: among the 23 CSP
plants built since 2014, only two plants are not equipped with a storage
system [7]. Moreover, industrial processes produce huge quantities of
waste heat. Above 100 ◦ C, 52.9 TWh/year are lost in France [8], i.e.
nearly 10 % of French industrial consumption [9]. A preliminary anal­
ysis of the waste heat field in Europe shows that it amounts to 370.4
TWh/year in industry [10]. In the United States 433 TWh/year are lost

* Corresponding author at: Procédés, Matériaux et Energie Solaire (PROMES-CNRS), UPR 8521, Rambla de la Thermodynamique, 66100 Perpignan, France.
E-mail address: diane.leroux@promes.cnrs.fr (D. Le Roux).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105776
Received 10 March 2022; Received in revised form 5 September 2022; Accepted 26 September 2022
Available online 14 October 2022
2352-152X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Le Roux et al.
at 25 ◦ C in the industrial sector, including 75 TWh/year at 150 ◦ C [11].
TES would support industrial heat recovery by dynamically matching
energy supply and demand [12], thereby increasing process efficiency
and providing low impact and low cost heat [13]. Both technologies
(CSP and waste heat recovery) should incorporate TES operating in the
same temperature range (200–600 ◦ C) [14].
There are three competing TES technologies: latent, thermochemical
and sensible [15,16]. Despite lower storage capacities, the latter is the
most widely used and mature technology. Among sensible heat storage,
the two-tank technology with molten salts is generally used. Neverthe­
less, this technology requires a lot of space and is expensive. Space
consumption can be reduced by combining the two tanks into one, called
thermocline storage [17,18]. To further reduce costs, Heat Transfer
Fluid (HTF) can be partially replaced by Thermal Energy Storage Ma­
terials (TESM), called filler materials. As a result, the cost of the thermal
storage media can be reduced up to 70 % and the cost of the storage
envelop by almost 65 % [19,20]. The cost of the TES can be reduced
down to 35 % compared to two-tank storage [21].
In order to achieve in the energy and ecological transition, new en­
ergy systems must be eco-designed. Optimisations of thermocline stor­
age identified in the literature, using a mathematical algorithm for
resolution, are still rare. Generally, parametric studies are performed.
Firstly, this type of analysis is presented. By means of a parametric study
and cost analysis, Yoo [22] investigated the influence of aspect ratio,
particle diameter, void fraction and operating temperature difference on
storage efficiency for a synthetic oil/alumina packed-bed. This work
showed that increasing the operating temperature difference leads to
higher energy storage density and thus lower costs. Zhao et al. [23]
sought to find the best cut-off temperatures (charge and discharge) to
improve the use of thermocline TES using rock and sand as solid filler
materials coupled with molten salts. In addition, they performed a
preliminary cost analysis to identify the optimal charging cut-off tem­
perature. This study showed that deep charge can reduce the total unit
cost of TES despite a smaller particle diameter and therefore a higher
pressure drop. Cárdenas et al. [24] studied the impact of aspect ratio,
particle size and mass of storage material on exergy efficiency and cost
effectiveness of an air/rock packed-bed. Profitability was analysed
through investment costs and levelised cost of storage, which were used
to determine the optimal value of overall aspect ratio that gives the
lowest cost per unit of exergy stored. Through a parametric analysis, the
authors showed that a low aspect ratio increases exergy loss. Despite the
improvement in exergy efficiency, increasing the mass of the storage
material decreases storage profitability. Odenthal et al. [25] investi­
gated the influence of charging time, cross-sectional area, particle
diameter and outlet temperature variation on the exergy regaining
factor (ratio of extracted exergy to nominal exergy) of a solar salt/basalt
packed-bed. Through a parametric study, they showed that a thermo­
cline storage results in only minor exergy losses compared to a 2-tank
storage. The cross-sectional area has a small impact on the exergy per­
formance, as well as the charging time. A small particle diameter im­
proves heat transfer and thus reduces the thermocline zone. The
permitted change in exit temperature has a significant impact: with a
low value, the storage volume is poorly use. Conversely, a large change
reduces the tank size, and the mass of the HTF by a factor between 2 and
3. Lou et al. [26] solved the problem of poor flow distribution in a solar
salt thermocline system. They optimised the performed baffles in the
upper and bottom manifolds to homogenise the passage times of the hot
front through the different orifices. Using a 2D model and a heuristic
algorithm, they showed that the optimised baffles can minimise the
thermocline zone and improve the performance indicators. A parametric
analysis was then carried out on the Reynolds number, aspect ratio, cone
angle, number of orifices and global porosity of the baffles. The addition
of optimised performed baffles has a much greater impact on the storage
performance than the optimisation of the four design parameters. Weiss
et al. [27] sought to optimise the inlet design for thermocline TES
without filler. Through a sensitivity study, the optimal shape and
2
Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776
position of the distributor were determined. The results showed that the
initial thermocline thickness is minimised when the fluid distributor is
located in the highest part of the tank. Keilany et al. [28] investigated
the influence of particle diameter, porosity and thermophysical prop­
erties of two fillers (cofalit and alumina) on the discharging energy ef­
ficiency. Increasing the volumetric heat capacity increases the charging
time and thus the thermocline thickness, which decreases the dis­
charging efficiency. Conductivity has a small influence on the thermal
behaviour of the storage. The results suggested that cofalit outperforms
alumina under the operational conditions of the study. Elfeky et al. [29]
compared the potential thermo-economic efficiency of four filler mate­
rials in a packed-bed storage through a parametric analysis. Quartzite
has the best thermo-economic efficiency while slags are the cheapest.
Gautam and Saini [30] analysed the influence of pores over the spherical
surface on the thermo-hydraulic efficiency of packed-bed storage. They
optimised packing element parameters such as pore depth, number of
pores and particle diameter. The optimised values of the design pa­
rameters are presented under different operating conditions (Reynolds
number and temperature rise parameter).
In this section, the main optimisations of packed-bed TES are
described. The first optimisation work was carried out by Maaliou and
McCoy [31]. They studied the influence of geometric and operational
parameters of the TES. They showed that pumping costs limit the tank
length which reduces the stored thermal energy. Choudhury et al. [32]
sought to maximise the stored thermal energy at low material costs in a
thermocline storage using air as HTF and rocks as TESM. The impact of
charging time, mass flow rate, tank length and diameter, particle
diameter and porosity was investigated. White et al. [33] varied the
number of packed-bed segments, aspect ratio (height-to-diameter) and
particle size to optimise exergy efficiency and costs using a genetic al­
gorithm. They showed that segmentation of the thermocline is beneficial
for maximising exergy efficiency and reducing costs. Marti et al. [34]
performed a multi-criteria optimisation of an air/rock packed-bed. They
tried to minimise material costs and maximise exergy efficiency through
the Pareto front. The optimisation variables used were tank height,
insulation layer thickness, particle diameter and top and bottom radii.
The cylindrical tank appears to be the most economical design. How­
ever, the truncated cone with the smallest cross-section at the top has
better exergy efficiency. Trevisan et al. [35] used a thermo-economic
analysis to optimise overall thermal efficiency, investment costs or
levelised cost of storage (defined as the discounted cost of electricity per
unit of electricity discharged) of an air/rock packed-bed. Five design
variables were considered: aspect ratio, particle size, preliminary sizing
efficiency, number of TES tanks and mass flow rate during discharging
step. This study showed that equal tank height and diameter minimises
the investment costs. We have recently proposed a multi-criteria opti­
misation of an existing industrial air/bauxite packed-bed using two
criteria - exergy efficiency and a normalised environmental indicator
[36] - and two optimisation variables - tank shape factor and particle
size of the filler. The resulting Pareto set was bounded by the single
exergy and environmental optimisations. The shape of the tank changes
from a square shape (environmental optimisation) to a tapered shape
(exergy optimisation). Despite a better exergy utilisation ratio and thus a
smaller tank volume, the exergy-optimised tank has a worse environ­
mental footprint, due to a higher fan electricity consumption. Among the
six optimisation works described in this paragraph, four used a thermo-
economic analysis to optimise a packed-bed TES. However, none of the
studies performed a three-criteria optimisation on exergy, environ­
mental and economic aspects. To the best of our knowledge, all the
optimisations carried out mainly used the storage geometry and the
particle grain size as optimisation variables. However, the influence of
the HTF and the filler material on the storage performances has not been
tested. A few sensitivity studies have investigated the influence of
thermophysical properties, without comparing two HTF or fillers on an
exergo-environmental-economic aspect [28,29]. The objective of this
paper is i) to extend the optimisation methodology of an existing
D. Le Roux et al.
industrial tank presented in [36] (exergo-environmental optimisation)
to a third criterion related to economics, ii) to compare two filler ma­
terials and select the best one. As far as optimisation tools are concerned,
genetic algorithm seems to be the most widely used to optimise energy
systems on multiple criteria. Haghighat et al. [37] used a multi-criteria
genetic algorithm available in Matlab® to optimise a hybrid energy
system on four criteria (energy, exergy, environment and economics).
Another genetic algorithm was employed to solve three-criteria opti­
misations (energy, environment and economics): on a distributed energy
system [38] and on an integrated waste heat recovery system [39].
Other researches in energy system field have focused on optimising
design parameters based on the multi-objective optimisation results, and
determining weighting factor through mathematical model [40,41].
Although exergy, environmental and economic (or thermo-
economic) optimisations exist for thermocline storage, to the best of
our knowledge, no study combines these three criteria. This paper aims
to perform a three-criteria optimisation on exergy, environmental and
economic aspects of an industrial high-temperature thermocline TES.
Two different TESM are compared on these three criteria: machined
ceramic (MC) and recycled ceramic obtained from fly ashes (CFA). To
our knowledge, no study compares the exergo-environmental-economic
potential of recycled ceramics, such as CFA, and machined ceramics,
such as bauxite, in packed-bed storage. A multi-criteria genetic algo­
rithm is used to solve the multi-criteria optimisation problem combining
exergy efficiency maximisation, environmental footprint minimisation
and Levelised Cost Of Energy (LCOE) minimisation. The article is
organised as follows. In the first part (see Section 2), the description of
the system is presented. In the second part (see Section 3), the meth­
odology is described, including the physical, environmental and eco­
nomic models. The overall structure of the optimisation problem and the
tools, algorithm and decision-making methods used to solve it are given.
The results are analysed in the third part (see Section 4). Firstly, the
three models are applied on the reference storage. Single-criterion and
multi-criteria optimisations are then presented. Finally, the two filler
materials (bauxite and CFA) are compared and the best one is selected.
The last part concludes (see Section 5).
2. System description
In a thermocline tank system, HTF flows through a TESM, as illus­
trated in Fig. 1. This fluid is usually a gas for high temperatures (above
~500 ◦ C) and a liquid for low temperatures.
During the energy input (charging step), hot fluid is injected at the
top of the tank. The heat is transferred to the filler material and cold
fluid is extracted from the bottom of the tank. Consequently, three
different zones appear: a hot zone at the top, a cold zone at the bottom
and a zone with a large temperature gradient in the middle, called the
Fig. 1. Thermocline tank working principle.
3
Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776
thermocline. During the discharging step, cold fluid is injected at the
bottom and hot fluid is extracted from the top. The same three zones
appear. In both steps, the thermocline zone moves through the tank until
it is partially or fully extracted.
In the present work, a multi-criteria optimisation of an existing in­
dustrial tank is performed. This tank, called Eco-Stock® [42] (Fig. 2), is
developed and commercialised by Eco-Tech Ceram [43] to recover
waste heat. This thermocline tank is composed of an air/bauxite packed-
bed. Its specifications are reported in Table 1.
In a previous work, a bi-criteria optimisation (exergy efficiency and
environmental footprint) was proposed for this Eco-Stock® (ES) tank
[36]. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), taken as environmental crite­
rion, was based on the following functional unit, assuming that the
discharged heat fired a power plant and therefore were valorised as
electricity.
Provide a discharged thermal exergy equal to that of the reference
tank (Exds* = (Exds)ES = 707 kWhth/cycle), during its lifespan (25 years)
considering 1 cycle a day and 15 days off a year for maintenance.
In this study, the heat stored in the TES will be directly valorised as
heat, for instance to preheat a process air flow. Moreover, as the cycle
duration of the optimised systems will be approximatively 8 h, 2 cycles
per day have been assumed. Therefore, the functional unit is revised
accordingly:
Provide a discharged thermal energy equal to that of the reference
tank (Qds* = (Qds)ES = 1567 kWhth/cycle), during its lifespan (25 years)
considering 2 cycles a day and 15 days off a year for maintenance.
The objectives of this study are i) to complete this optimisation
methodology by adding an economic criterion: the LCOE, ii) to compare
two filler materials: MC vs CFA sintered ceramics. Table 2 depicts the
thermophysical properties of the HTF (air) and the two considered
TESM, evaluated at the average operating temperature (310 ◦ C). The
second filler material was selected because it is derived from waste. CFA
are a by-product of blast furnace. Consequently, its environmental
footprint and cost should be lower than that of MC.
3. Methodology
This work aims to optimally design a thermocline tank according to
three criteria: maximising exergy efficiency, minimising environmental
impacts and minimising economic costs. The first two criteria have been
detailed in a previous paper [36], and are briefly reminded in the
following section.
3.1. Physical and environmental models
The dynamic model is detailed in [44]. It consists of solving the
transient mass, energy and entropy balances applied to a representative
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Fig. 2. Industrial installation of the Eco-Stock® thermal storage system.

charging processes, ṁ the HTF mass flow rate and Δex the specific exergy
Table 1
change experienced by the HTF while crossing the storage tank. For an
Specifications of the industrial thermocline tank.
incompressible fluid, it writes:
Parameters of the tank Values [ ( )]
Tout 1
Maximum theoretical energy capacity Qth 1010 J Δex = cf ⋅ Tout − Tin − T∞ ⋅ln + ⋅(Pout − Pin ) (2)
Discharge energy Qds 1567 kWhth/cycle Tin ρf
Porosity ε 40 %
Charging or discharging time tc or tds (target values) 7.05 h where Tin and Tout are the inlet and outlet temperatures of the HTF, T∞
Hot temperature TH 600 C the ambient temperature and Pin and Pout the inlet and outlet pressures.
◦

Low temperature TL 20 C
◦

Five design parameters and two optimisation variables (Table 3)

Ambient temperature T∞ 15 C
◦

Cut-off rate τcutoff 20 % describe the system for a given HTF/TESM pair. The design parameters
Tank diameter Dt 1.9 m are specified by the energy source supplied and the energy demand of
Tank length Lt 3.1 m the fed process. Then, for a given HTF/TESM pair, only two non-
Particle diameter Ds 29.9 mm dimensional optimisation variables appear to be sufficient to describe
the full dynamic behaviour of the system. The external shape factor
accounts for the geometry of the tank (diameter-to-length) and the in­
Table 2 ternal one represents the particle size of the filler material (ratio of
Thermophysical properties of heat transfer fluid and filler materials. particle to tank diameters). Both optimisation variables are continuous.
Thermophysical properties of fluid and filler material Values Their ranges are [0.1; 3] and [0.0001; 1] for the external and internal
HTF (dry air) cf = 1047.6 J ⋅ kg− 1 ⋅ K− 1
shape factors respectively.
ρf = 0.595 kg ⋅ m− 3 To determine the performance of the TES, several cycles are achieved
λf = 0.045 W ⋅ m− 1 ⋅ K− 1 until reaching the periodic stationary behaviour. Then, the real volume
μf = 2.1 ⋅ 10− 5 Pa ⋅ s is determined, as well as the quantity of filler material and the energy
TESM (MC) cs = 1076 J ⋅ kg− 1 ⋅ K− 1
consumed by the fan. This dynamic model has been validated using
ρs = 3005 kg ⋅ m− 3
λs = 3.982 W ⋅ m− 1 ⋅ K− 1 experimental data provided by the manufacturer [44].
TESM (CFA) cs = 1000 J ⋅ kg− 1 ⋅ K− 1 For the environmental model, a LCA is performed from “cradle-to-
ρs = 2600 kg ⋅ m− 3 grave”.
λs = 1.800 W ⋅ m− 1 ⋅ K− 1 The LCA criterion considered includes four indicators, related to the
4 impact categories (energy, climate change, resource depletion and
elementary volume, composed of fluid and solid. It is a one-dimensional human health) most commonly used in LCAs performed on CSP plants or
(radial gradients are neglected) two-phase model with two equations: TES systems in the literature [18,45,46]:
one describing the thermal behaviour of the fluid and one of the solid.
The thermophysical properties of fluid and solid, assumed constant, are - Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) in MJeq,
evaluated at the average operating temperature. The system of equa­ - Global Warming Potential (GWP) in kgCO2_eq,
tions to be solved is presented in Annexes. The physical model was - Abiotic Depletion Potential of mineral, fossil and renewable re­
developed to compute the exergy efficiency of the TES. This indicator sources (ADP) in kg Sbeq,
compares the thermal exergy extracted from the TES by the HTF during - Particulate matter (PM) in kg PM2.5eq.
the discharging step with that supplied to the TES by the HTF during the
charging step. These four indicators are normalised according to International

∫tds
Table 3
− ṁ⋅Δex⋅dt
Independent variables to depict a thermocline thermal energy storage.
ηex = 0
(1) Design parameters Optimisation variables
∫tc
ṁ⋅Δex⋅dt Theoretical storage capacity Qth (J) External shape factor Fe = Dt/Lt
0
Porosity of the packing-bed ε (− )
Targeted charging or discharging time tc or tds(h) Internal shape factor Fi = Ds/Dt
Operating temperatures: high TH and low TL(K)
where tds and tc are respectively the duration of the discharging and

4
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Reference Life Cycle Data system (ILCD) [47] for GWP, ADP and PM, and The insulation cost is evaluated from a similar expression, according
Bilan Produit [48] for CED. They are expressed in terms of European to the volume of insulation material Vins [52,53]:
capita annual impact (ca.year). The environmental optimisation crite­
Cins = Cref ,ins ⋅Vins ⋅fM&S(2021,1985) (9)
rion is defined as the sum of these normalised indicators.
with
3.2. Life Cycle Cost Assessment
Cref, ins: specific reference costs of the insulation (€ /m3) [55],
Economic indicators are calculated through a Life Cycle Cost fM&S: the Marshall & Swift index (− ), as specific reference cost is
Assessment (LCCA), taking into account the different costs and revenues related to 1985 [53],
involved in a thermocline storage. Vins: insulation-layer volume (m3),

3.2.1. Economic indicators The insulation volume depends on the tank length Lt, tank diameter
Different economic indicators are considered: Life Cycle Costs (LCC), Dt, and insulation layer thickness epins:
Net Present Value (NPV) and LCOE. The first indicator represents the ( ( 2 )) ( )
total amount of costs involved over the lifespan of the system [49]. π epins + 2⋅Dt ⋅epins π(Dt + 2⋅epins )2
Vins = Lt + 2 epins (10)
4 4
LCC = CI + CM + CO + CR − CRes + CD (3)
The filler material cost depends on the TESM used and the tank
where CI, CM, CO, CR and CD are respectively the capital (or investment), volume.
maintenance, operation, replacement and dismantling costs, and CRes
CTESM = Cref ,TESM ⋅ms (11)
the residual value. All costs included in the definition of LCC are detailed
in this section.
with
NPV is equal to the sum of the annual cash flows discounted to their
value at the start date of the project [50].
Cref, TESM: specific reference costs of the filler material (€/kg),
NPV = I⋅USf (N, i* ) − LCC (4) ms: mass of the filler material (kg).

where I is the annual income of the TES (€ ). The Uniform Series factor
USf is used to sum the actualised annual incomes over the lifespan (N
years) of the setup, based on the discount rate i and the inflation rate e. It
is defined as follows [50,51]:
The last main equipment is the fan. Its cost is determined according
to the pressure drops and volume flow rate.
( 2
)
Cfan = 10 3.5391− 0.3533⋅log(v˙f )+0.4477⋅(log(v˙f ) ) ⋅fΔP ⋅fmat ⋅fM&S(2021,2001) (12)

∑N (
1+e
)j
(1 + i* )N − 1 with
USf (N, i* ) = = (5)
1+i i* .(1 + i* )N
fmat: correction factor for fan materials (− ) [54],
j=1

fΔP: correction factor for pressure drops (− ) [52,54],

where i* is the real interest rate defined from the Fisher equation:
fM&S: the Marshall & Swift index (− ), as correction factors were
1 + i* =
1+i
(6) defined in 2001 [53],
1+e v˙f : volume flow rate (m3 ⋅ s− 1).
Finally, LCOE is the selling price that cancels NPV (Eq. (4)) and can
be expressed according to LCC [50], using Eq. (4). Installation costs are usually between 25 and 55 % of the equipment
costs [56]. As the studied system is not large, the value of 25 % is chosen
LCOE =
LCC
(7) [52]:
USf (N, i* ).H ∑ ( )
Cinst = 0.25⋅ Ceqp = 0.25⋅ Ct + Cins + CTESM + Cfan (13)
where H is the annual heat production (in kWhth/year).
Engineering costs (Eq. (14)) and contingency costs (Eq. (15)) are
3.2.2. Cost assessment defined as a percentage of equipment and installation costs [53].
Six different costs are considered in this economic model: invest­ (∑ )
Ceng = 0.05⋅ Ceqp + Cinst (14)
ment, maintenance, operation, replacement, dismantling and residual.
(∑ )
• Investment costs Ccont = 0.1⋅ Ceqp + Cinst (15)

The investment costs take into account the costs of the main equip­ The investment costs are the sum of the different costs presented
ment, installation, engineering and contingencies. For a thermocline above:
storage system, four items of equipment are considered: tank, insulation, CI = Ct + Cins + CTESM + Cfan + Cinst + Ceng + Ccont (16)
filler materials and fan [52–54]. The tank cost is evaluated as follows:
( )0.512
Ct = 557.5⋅
Vt
⋅fmat ⋅fM&S(2021,1998) (8) • Maintenance cost
0.0038
Annual maintenance costs are usually a percentage (2 to 5 %) of the
with investment costs (Eq. (16)). As thermocline storage is an immature
technology, 4 % is chosen [56]. This cost is estimated at year 0 and must
fmat: correction factor for tank material (− ) [54], be discounted for each year j according to the real interest rate. Over the
fM&S: the Marshall & Swift index (− ) which allows costs to be dis­ lifespan of the installation, the total maintenance costs write:
counted for inflation, as correction factor fmat is related to 1998 [53]
(see Annexes for more details), CM = 0.04⋅CI ⋅USf (N, i* ) (17)
Vt: volume of the tank (m3).

5
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Table 4
• Operating cost All economic parameters and factors involved in the LCCA.
Parameters Value
Annual operating costs correspond to the electrical energy consumed
Economic Interest rate i (%/year) 10
by the fan and the electrical cabinet. The pumping energy Efan is Inflation rate e (%/year) 3
computed per cycle from the physical model and the electrical cabinet Real interest rate i* 6.8
energy Ecab is assumed to be 0.2 kWhe/cycle. After discounting and (%/year)
summing over the lifetime of the installation, the total operating costs Lifetime of the TES N 25 years
Investment fmat related to the tank (− ) 3.3 for stainless steel [54]
are expressed as follows: fmat related to the fan (− ) 5.8 for stainless steel [54]
10(0.20899⋅log(ΔP))− 0.0328⋅(log(ΔP)) for ΔP
2
( ) fΔP (− )
CO = Efan + Ecab ⋅ncycles ⋅N⋅Pe ⋅USf (N, i* ) (18)
< 16 kPa
Cref, mat(€/kg) 0.9 for MC and 0.03 for CFA
where Pe is the electricity selling price (€ /kWhe) and ncycles the number of Cref, ins (€/m3) 255 [55]
cycles performed each year. Energy Electricity price Pe(c€ / 15.8 [57]
kWhe)
Heat selling price Pth(c€/ 6.9 (France) – 6.4 (Europe UE 27) [58]
• Replacement cost kWhth)

Replacement costs are the costs of the different components replaced

during the lifespan of the system, discounted to the year of replacement volume and mass of materials ensuring the targeted discharged energy
[49] (Eq. (19)). In the thermocline TES, all pipes, ducts and their related (1567 kWhth/cycle). The environmental footprint is then determined
insulation are replaced after 15 years of use. using the four environmental indicators. Finally, the LCCA is carried out
( ) to evaluate the LCOE of the system.
∑ ∑Nrj ( 1 )t⋅Nj
CR = Nbj ⋅Cj ⋅ t=1 (19)
j
1 + i* 3.4. Optimisation algorithm

where Nbj the number of equipment j, Cj the unit cost of equipment j, Nrj
the number of replacements of equipment j and Nj the lifetime of
equipment j. The replacement costs have been deducted from the
existing industrial installation and amount to approximately 3 k€ over
the lifespan of the system.
• Residual value and dismantling costs
Dismantling cost and residual value are assumed to be equal [49].
CRes = CD
As the consequence, these two terms vanish in the LCC expression
(Eq. (3)).
3.2.3. Income assessment
Income is generated from the sale of heat provided by the thermo­
cline TES. This revenue is the product of the annual heat production (H
in kWhth/year) by the heat selling price (Pth in € /kWhth).
I = H⋅Pth
According to the defined functional unit, the energy released is
constant at each cycle and equal to 1567 kWhth/cycle, so the annual heat
production amounts to 1097 MWhth/year. As the income I is constant
and does not depend on the optimised solution, minimising the LCOE,
minimising the LCC and maximising the NPV are equivalent [50]. LCOE
minimisation will be used in the following.
Table 4 depicts the cost parameters, the correction factors considered
in the investment costs, and the other parameters involved in the LCCA.
The correction factors fmat depend on the material used for the tank and
the fan: stainless steel for both equipment. The correction factor fΔP
takes into account the pressure losses in the tank.
3.3. Overall structure of the multi-criteria optimisation of thermocline
storage
Fig. 3 shows the links between the physical, environmental and
economic models, and displays the different inputs and outputs of each
model. The first two models were detailed in [36]. The economic model
has been detailed in the previous section. Based on the design parame­
ters and the two shape factors, for a HTF/TESM pair, the physical model
determines the exergy efficiency, the pumping energy, the required
The optimisation problem is to find the optimal values of the two
shape factors minimising the objective function, according to the given
design parameters and HTF/TESM pair (Table 3):
⎧
( ) ⎨ (Qds )* = (Qds )ES
Min f obj with ε = 40%and τcutoff = 20% (22)
⎩ ◦ ◦
TH = 600 C and TL = 20 C
The objective vector function fobj includes the three criteria pre­
sented in the previous sections (Eqs. (23) to (25)):
(20) fobj (1) = 1 − ηex (23)
fobj (2) = LCA (24)
fobj (3) = LCOE (25)
This problem is solved with the multi-criteria genetic algorithm
available in Matlab®. It is based on the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm II (NSGA-II) method developed by Deb et al. [59]. Default
parameters provided in Matlab® scripts are kept (Table 5).
(21)
3.5. Decision making method
The optimal solutions of the multi-criteria problem result in a Pareto
set. There is no optimal solution in this Pareto set but a solution that
satisfies a trade-off between the three criteria (exergy, environment and
economy). In order to select the most desirable optimal point among the
Pareto front solutions, different techniques can be applied. “Technique
for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution” (TOPSIS) is chosen.
This method selects the optimal solution with the farthest distance from
the non-ideal point and the shortest distance from the ideal point [60].
Fig. 4 illustrates this method for the 2D problem presented in previous
work: exergy/LCA optimisation [36]. The two extreme bounds of the
Pareto set define the ideal solution I (ηex, max, LCAmin) and non-ideal or
nadir solution N (ηex, min, LCAmax). The selected solution (S) corresponds
NS
to the one that minimises the following distance ratio: SI+NS (i.e. the
solution farthest from N and closest to I). In order to apply the TOPSIS
method, the weight of each criterion must be chosen. The same weight
was applied for each criterion.

6
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Fig. 3. Overall structure of the multi-criteria optimisation with the inputs and outputs of each model.

gas price in France (6.9€/kWhth) or in Europe (UE 27 in 2021: 6.4 c€/

Table 5
kWhth). Consequently, the NPV is largely positive.
Tuning parameters and settings for multi-criteria genetic algorithm.
Parameters Value
4.2. Single-criterion optimisations
Decision variables 2
Objective functions 3
Population size 50 In this section, the results of the three different optimisations (exergy
Number of generations 400 efficiency, normalised environmental impacts and LCOE) will be pre­
Initialisation mode Random sented for the same filler material: CFA.
Selection process Tournament (size of 4)
The optimal tank and solid particle dimensions are presented in
Crossover probability 0.8
Mutation probability 0.2 Fig. 5 for the three single optimisations. The exergy optimisation leads to
Mutation distribution index 20 tapered tank shape while the LCA and LCOE optimisations lead to stocky
tank shapes. The particle diameters are close to the centimetre for all
optimisations, with a particle diameter twice as large for the LCA opti­
4. Results and discussions misation compared to the exergy optimisation. The LCA and LCOE-
optimised tanks have approximately the same dimensions. The volume
4.1. Application to the Eco-Stock® tank

Table 6
The different models presented above are applied to the existing
Results of the three models on the reference tank.
industrial thermocline tank, taken as reference case. The physical model
indicates that a stationary periodic evolution is reached after 6 cycles, Physical model LCA LCCA

with a cycle time (charging and discharging steps) of 8.3 h. The storage ηex 95.6 % GWP(kg CO2 eq) 57,100 LCC(k€) 431
performance is assessed on the basis of this established cycle (Table 6). τu, ex 56.8 % CED(MJ eq) 13,070,000 NPV − France(k€) 467
ADP(kg Sb eq) 6.54 NPV − UE 27(k€ ) 402
The environmental impacts are indicated by LCA tot., the sum of the four
PM(kg PM2.5 eq) 53.0 LCOE(c€/kWhth) 3.3
normalised indicators. The economic indicators show that the system is LCA tot. (ca. year) 93
very profitable. The LCOE (3.3 c€/kWhth) is significantly higher than the

Fig. 4. Working principle of optimum point selection using TOPSIS decision making method.

7
D. Le Roux et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison between the three different designs with CFA as solid media.
of the exergy-optimised tank is respectively 20 % and 13 % lower than
those of the LCA and LCOE-optimised tanks.
Fig. 6 presents the bounds of the temperature profile as a function of
their normalised length obtained for the three optimised tanks. The
green, red and purple colours refer respectively to the exergy, the LCA
and the LCOE-optimised tanks. The same colour codes will be used in the
following sections. The temperature profiles of the exergy optimisation
are steeper than those obtained for the other criteria. As a result, the
exergy optimisation leads to a better stratification and a thinner ther­
mocline zone (i.e. high temperature gradient zone). The LCA and LCOE
optimisations result in similar temperature profiles. Note that thermo­
cline thickness has a direct impact on the exergy utilisation ratio. The
bounds of the temperature profile represent the active zone of the
storage. Thanks to a better stratification, it is larger for the exergy
optimisation (76.3 %) and smaller for the LCOE and LCA optimisations
(66.4 % and 61.4 % respectively). Consequently, smaller volumes are
required for the same amount of delivered energy as depicted in Fig. 5.
Fig. 7 shows the four LCA indicators for the exergy, LCA and eco­
nomic optimisations. Concerning the total LCA impact, the TESM,
transport and end-of-life phases are negligible with less than 3 % of the
total environmental impacts. The ADP indicator is the most impactful
indicator with an average of 62 % of the total LCA impact. As explained
in [36], the tank construction, which uses a lot of materials, is the most
impactful phase of thermocline storage. As the volume of the exergy-
Fig. 6. Evolution of temperature limit profiles depending on the three opti­
mised tanks (air/CFA packed-bed). (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
8
Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776
optimised tank is smaller than that of the two other optimisations, its
tank construction phase is less impactful than those of the two other
optimisations (51 % vs 68 % of the total environmental impact). The
GWP, CED and PM indicators are very low compared to the ADP indi­
cator. Despite a reduction in the tank volume due to a better exergy
utilisation ratio, the environmental impacts of the exergy-optimised
tank are higher than those of the LCA and LCOE-optimised tanks. The
use phase is more impactful for the exergy optimisation (36 ca.year)
because the tank design (high tank height and small particle diameter)
results in higher pressure drops and so higher pumping energy The in­
crease in exergy performance leads to an increase in the environmental
impacts, as explained in [36]. For the economic optimisation, the total
normalised impacts are similar to those of the LCA optimisation (61 and
60 ca.year respectively).
Knowing the evolution of the exergy and environmental performance
of the different configurations, the economic indicators should be
compared. The different costs that make up the investment costs are
illustrated in Fig. 8. A parallel can be drawn with life cycle phases (use
and tank construction) in Fig. 7. The fan cost is higher and the use phase
has greater environmental impacts for the exergy-optimised tank. This
cost depends on the pressure drops which mainly impact the fan cost. It
reaches 19 % of the total investment costs for this optimisation, while it
is only 10 % for the other tanks. The tank cost represents more than 50 %
of the total investment costs (by analogy, the tank construction is the
most environmentally impactful phase of the life cycle). The total in­
vestment is higher for the exergy optimisation (316 k€) than for the
environmental and economic optimisations (303 k€ and 294 k€
respectively).
Fig. 9 shows the economic indicators for the three single optimisa­
tions. A hierarchy is formed: the LCOE-optimised tank has obviously the
best economic indicators and the exergy-optimised tank the worst. The
LCC are similar for the LCA and LCOE optimisations (413 and 401 k€),
which is 9 % lower than that of the exergy optimisation. The NPV of the
economic and environmental-optimised tanks are respectively 8 % and
12 % higher than the exergy-optimised tank. As for the LCOE, it reaches
3.1 c€ /kWhth for the economic optimisation which is half the gas price in
France. Therefore, these optimised storages are cost-effective compared
to the price of natural gas in France (6.0 c€ /kWhth).
To sum up, the exergy-optimised tank is tapered and has a small
particle diameter. This results in higher pressure drops and higher
pumping energy consumed by the fan. The environmental and
economic-optimised tanks have a similar design with a stocky shape.
These optimisations show similar results for all three criteria.
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Fig. 7. Comparison of LCA normalised indicators by phases of the life cycle for the air/CFA optimised packed-beds.

Fig. 8. Comparison of the investment costs for the three studied tanks.

Fig. 9. Comparison of economic indicators for the air/CFA optimised packed-beds.

4.3. Multi-criteria optimisation figure.

This section focuses on the combined optimisation of three criteria
(exergy efficiency, LCA indicator and LCOE). Fig. 10 shows the three
dimensional (3D) Pareto set obtained by the multi-criteria genetic al­
gorithm for different generations: the initialisation, the first, the fourth,
the 10th, the 40th and the last (400th). The genetic algorithm converges
quickly as illustrated by the Pareto sets of the different generations
(Fig. 10). The ideal and nadir and selected solutions are marked in this
In order to analyse this 3D Pareto set, Fig. 11 presents it in two di­
mensions: according to the exergy and LCOE criteria – top – the exergy
and LCA criteria – bottom, left – and the LCA and LCOE criteria – bot­
tom, right. This Pareto set is bounded by the exergy optimisation – on
the right of the Pareto graph – and the LCA optimisation – on the left.
The economic optimisation belongs to the Pareto set and is close to the
LCA optimisation. Looking at Fig. 11, the exergy efficiency seems to go
against the LCOE and the LCA criteria, as shown in previous sections.

9
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Fig. 10. 3D Pareto set of exergy/LCA/LCOE optimisation with genetic algorithm for air/CFA packed-beds.

Fig. 11. Pareto graph in two dimensions of exergy/LCA/LCOE optimisation with genetic algorithm for air/CFA packed-beds – exergy/LCOE criteria (top), exergy/
LCA (bottom left) and LCA/LCOE (bottom right).

The ideal, nadir and selected solutions are shown in this figure.
Applying the TOPSIS method to the Pareto set, the point [0.969; 61;
3.1] (ηex; LCA; LCOE), i.e. the economic optimisation, seems to be the
best compromise (S in Figs. 10 and 11). Indeed, this solution has the best
economic performance and the environmental impacts remain low for a
good exergy efficiency. Looking at the Pareto set (Fig. 11), this point is
located before the strong degradations of the LCOE and the LCA criteria
while being at 0.008 points away from the exergy efficiency optimum.
For this multi-criteria optimisation, the dimensions are the same that the
economic-optimised tank as illustrated below.
Fig. 12 shows the different shape factors of the three single optimi­
sations and the Pareto set obtained for the three-criteria optimisation
(air/CFA packed-bed). The internal shape factor is close to 0.004 for the
single optimisations. The same trend is visible for the Pareto front,
which means that the particle diameter remains close for all solutions.
Only the external shape factor varies between 0.74 (close to the exergy
optimisation) and 1.82 (LCA optimisation). This variation shows that
the tank geometry changes from one optimisation to another, as illus­
trated with the single optimisations presented in Section 4.1. As illus­
trated in Figs. 11 and 12, most of the Pareto points are located between
the economic and exergy optimisations. Indeed, the external shape
factors of these points are mainly between 0.74 and 1, i.e. a more or less
tapered tank geometry. Regarding the internal shape factor Fi, similar
values are obtained for most of the optimised solutions, around 0.004. In

10
D. Le Roux et al.
Fig. 12. Shape factors of exergy/LCA/LCOE optimisation with genetic algorithm for air/CFA packed-beds.
summary, the tank changes from a stocky shape (LCA and LCOE opti­
misations) to a tapered shape (exergy optimisation). The LCA-optimised
tank has a more pronounced stocky geometry than the LCOE-optimised
tank. Applying the TOPSIS method to the three-criteria Pareto front
leads to select the LCOE as the best trade-off solution.
4.4. Bauxite (MC) vs. ceramic from fly ashes (CFA)
The same optimisations were performed with bauxite as TESM. The
dimensions of the optimised tanks are shown in Fig. 13. Similar
behaviour is obtained: the exergy optimisation leads to a tapered shape,
while the LCA and LCOE optimisations present square and stocky shapes
respectively. However, the stocky shapes are more pronounced for the
LCA and LCOE optimisations with CFA. The CFA exergy-optimised tank
is less tapered than the MC exergy-optimised tank. Despite a similar
internal shape factor for all three optimisations (Table 9), a smaller tank
diameter also means a smaller grain size (Fi = Ds/Dt). The particle
diameter is smaller for the exergy optimisations, while it is up to twice as
large for the LCOE and LCA optimisations. The tank volume of the CFA
optimisations is on average 1.2 times larger than that of the MC opti­
misations (Table 9). This is due to poorer thermophysical properties of
CFA than MC, in particular the volumetric heat capacity ρcp (Table 2).
All three criteria are improved by using CFA instead of MC. Indeed,
the exergy efficiency is slightly higher, with less than 1 % increase be­
tween the single-criterion optimisations. The environmental impacts are
Fig. 13. Comparison between the different designs with MC and CFA as solid media
11
Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776
reduced by 30 % on average between the CFA and MC optimisations.
Despite a larger tank volume for the CFA optimisations, the TESM cost is
negligible because CFA are cheaper than MC (Table 4): less than 500€
while it reaches 14 k€ for the MC optimisations. Nevertheless, the MC
optimisations use more pumping energy than the CFA optimisations.
Consequently, fan and operational costs are higher for these optimisa­
tions (respectively 3 and 19 % increase on average). These differences
compensate each other, resulting in a close LCOE for each optimisation:
between 3.4 and 3.1 c€ /kWhth.
The application of the TOPSIS method on both multi-criteria opti­
misation (MC and CFA) leads to the selection of the economic optimi­
sation as the trade-off solution. The main results of the different air/
bauxite and air/CFA optimisations are given in Table 7 and completed in
the appendices (Table 9).
5. Conclusion
Multi-objective optimisation of an industrial thermocline TES is
investigated from exergy, environmental and economic aspects. Two
different solid fillers are used in this system: machined ceramic (bauxite)
and ceramic from fly ashes. A one-dimensional model is applied to
determine the exergy efficiency. In order to compare the environmental
footprint of the storages, the functional unit of the LCA is defined as
providing the same discharged energy during the lifetime of the TES. For
the economic aspects, LCCA is performed and the LCOE is used as the
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Table 7 C cost (€ )
Dimensions and the performance of the reference tank and the three-criteria Cref specific reference costs of the insulation (€ ⋅ m− 3) and material
optimisations selected by TOPSIS. (€ ⋅ kg− 1)
HTF/TESM Ref. tank Three-criteria opt. c heat capacity (J ⋅ kg− 1 ⋅ K− 1)
Air/MC Air/MC Air/CFA
D diameter (m)
E energy consumed annually (MWh/year)
Dt(m) 1.92 2.43 2.64
Ex thermal exergy (kWhth)
Lt(m) 3.08 1.82 1.72
Ds(mm) 29.9 14.3 11.3 e inflation rate (%/year)
ηex 95.6 % 96.0 % 96.9 % ep thickness (m)
LCA tot. (ca. year) 93 87 61 ex specific exergy (J ⋅ kg− 1)
LCOE(c€/kWhth) 3.3 3.1 3.1 Fe external shape factor (− )
Fi internal shape factor (− )
third criterion. fΔP correction factor related to the pressure drops −
The exergy and LCA optimisations with CFA show the same trends as fM&S Marshall & Swift index (− )
for the MC optimisations [36]. The shape of the exergy-optimised tank is fmat correction factor related to the tank and fan materials (− )
tapered and its particle diameter is small. Consequently, the pressures H annual heat production (kWhth/year)
drops are higher and the TES uses higher pumping power to operate. The h heat transfer coefficient (J ⋅ kg− 1)
economic and environmental optimisations are close, with environ­ I incomes (€ )
mental impacts of 87 and 60 ca.year respectively for the MC and CFA i interest or discount rate (%/year)
optimisations. The LCOE are similar too: 3.1 c€ /kWhth on average for L length (m)
LCA and LCOE optimisations for both TESM. The use of a waste filler LCA LCA criterion (ca. year)
material (CFA) improves significantly the environmental performance, LCC Life Cycle Cost (€ )
despite the increase in tank volume compared to the MC optimisations. LCOE Levelised Cost Of Energy criterion (c€ /kWhth)
The environmental impacts are reduced by 13 % and 35 % for the LCA ṁ mass flow (kg ⋅ s− 1)
and LCOE optimisations with CFA. The LCOE are similar for all config­ m mass (kg)
urations: 3.2 c€ /kWhth on average, which is approximately half the price N lifetime of the system (year)
of natural gas in France or in Europe. Despite higher pumping energy Nb number of equipment (− )
and consequently higher operational and fan costs, the LCOE of the Nr number of replacements
exergy-optimised tanks is 1.8 times lower than the gas price in France. NPV Net Present Value (€ )
The exergy efficiencies of the CFA optimisations are slightly improved ncycles number of cycles performed each year (cycle)
compared to those of the air/bauxite optimisations (2.3 % maximum for P pressure (Pa) or energy price (€ /kWhe) or (€ /kWhth)
the exergy-optimised tank). Despite poorer thermophysical properties, Q energy capacity (J)
CFA seems to be the best choice for TESM as all three optimisation T temperature (K)
criteria are better. t time (s)
This study seeks to find the optimal geometry of the thermocline U overall heat loss coefficient between the fluid and the outside
tank, through two dimensionless variables, for a given HTF and a filler (W ⋅ m− 2 ⋅ K− 1)
material (MC or CFA). The Matlab® multi-criteria genetic algorithm is USf Uniform Series factor (− )
used to solve conflicts between the three objectives. The TOPSIS method V volume (m3)
is used for decision making. v̇ volume flow (m3 ⋅ s− 1)
The 3D Pareto sets (MC and CFA) are bounded by the exergy and LCA
optimisations. The economic optimisations belong to these sets and are Greek symbols
close to the LCA optimisations. The application of the TOPSIS method
leads to select the LCOE optimisations as the best compromise solutions Δ variation (− )
for each filler material tested. These storages have stocky shape whereas ε porosity (− )
the reference one is tapered. This difference leads to better performance η efficiency (− )
1
on all three criteria. Despite close exergy and economic performance, λ thermal conductivity (W ⋅ m− ⋅ K− 1)
the three-criteria optimisation with MC has a 30 % higher environ­ μ dynamic viscosity (Pa ⋅ s)
mental impact than the CFA one. As a result, the obtained thermocline ρ density (kg ⋅ m− 3)
TES with CFA as filler material is very interesting from an exergy, τ rate (− )
environmental and economic point of view for heat storage. τu utilisation rate (− )
Next studies will test other solid filler materials to find the best
combination for the operating temperatures of the Eco-Stock® Subscripts and superscripts
(20 ◦ C–600 ◦ C). In the current geopolitical context in Europe, low-
carbon systems are increasingly valued. It may therefore be interesting * real
to study the impact of the CO2 avoided by this technology for both LCA ∞ outdoor or free condition
and LCCA in future work. In this study, a constant cut-off rate of 20 % c charge
was considered. However, cut-off rate is generally set by the upstream cab electrical cabinet
(charging step) and downstream (discharging step) processes and will cont contingency
highly affect the storage performance [23]. Thence, further work should cutoff cut-off
be carried out by adding the cut-off rates as supplementary optimisation D dismantling
variables. ds discharge
E electric
Nomenclature ES Eco-Stock®
Eff effective
a external exchange surface (m2 ⋅ m− 3) eng engineering
eqp equipment

12
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

ex exergy LCCA Life Cycle Cost Assessment

f fluid LCOE Levelised Cost Of Energy (c€ /kWhth)
fan fan MC machined ceramic (bauxite)
H hot NPV Net Present Value (€ )
I investment NSGA-II Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II
in in PM particulate matter (kg PM2.5eq)
ins insulation TES Thermal Energy Storage
inst installation TESM Thermal Energy Storage Material
L low TOPSIS Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
M maintenance
mat materials CRediT authorship contribution statement
O operation
out out D. Le Roux: Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft,
R replacement Writing – review & editing, Investigation. R. Olives: Supervision, Re­
Res residual sources, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. P. Neveu:
s solid Supervision, Resources, Writing – review & editing.
TESM filler material
t tank Declaration of competing interest
th thermal
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Abbreviations interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
ADP Abiotic Depletion Potential of mineral, fossil and renewable
resources (kg Sbeq) Data availability
CED Cumulative Energy Demand (MJeq)
CFA Ceramic from Fly Ashes Data will be made available on request.
CSP Concentrating Solar Power
GWP Global Warming Potential (kgCO2eq) Acknowledgements
HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data system This project has received funding from the Occitanie region (France)
LCA Life Cycle Assessment under award number 19008845 ALDOCT 000791. The authors would
LCC Life Cycle Costs (€ ) like to thank Eco-Tech Ceram for sharing the data used in this study.

Annexes.

A.1. Physical model

The one-dimensional two-phase model assumes that the temperature, pressure and velocity values are uniform in a section perpendicular to the
flow. It models the HTF (see Eq. (6.1)) and the filler material (see Eq. (6.2)) separately.
( ) ( )
∂Tf ∂Tf ∂ ∂Tf ( ) ( )
ε.(ρ.c)f . + u. = . λeff ,f . + h.as . Ts − Tf + U.af . T∞ − Tf (6.1)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z
( )
∂Ts ∂ ∂Ts ( )
(1 − ε).(ρ.c)s . = . λeff ,s . + h.as . Tf − Ts (6.2)
∂t ∂z ∂z
With ρ: density (kg.m− 3), c: heat capacity (J.kg− 1.K− 1), ε: porosity of the packed-bed (− ), a: external exchange surface (m2.m− 3). The subscripts f
and s denote respectively the fluid and the solid phases.
The terms on the left-hand side of the equality account for the evolution of the internal energy in the fluid and the solid, as well as the advection
within the fluid. The first term on the right-hand side represents the thermal diffusion in the fluid and the solid using the effective conductivities λeff.
The second term on the right-hand side involves the heat transfer coefficient h. This coefficient defines the convective exchange between the packed-
bed and the fluid flowing through it. Finally, in Eq. (6.2), the heat exchange between the fluid and the tank wall is taken into account, through the
overall heat loss coefficient U, i.e. the heat losses through the walls.
The boundary conditions are an imposed temperature at the fluid inlet. A zero second derivative condition is applied to the temperature at the tank
outlet for the fluid and the solid. These equations are discretised by a first order centred formulation in space and first order discretisation in time.

A.2. Marshall & Swift index

Marshall & Swift index is used to discount costs for inflation, as parameters of Eqs. (8) to (12) were defined between 1985 and 1998. This index,
published annually in the journal Chemical Engineering, is given in Table 8 for the different years considered.

13
D. Le Roux et al. Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776

Table 8
Marshall & Swift index values used in the eco­
nomic assessment.

Year Marshall & Swift index

1985 790
1998 1062
2001 1093
2021 1773.4

Marshall & Swift factor is expressed as:

fM&S(2021)
fM&S(2021,X) = (6.3)
fM&s(X)

where fM&s(X) the Marshall & Swift index of the year X.

A.3. Summary of the results obtained for the different optimisations

Table 9 is a summary of the performances of the studied tanks for both solid filler tested.

Table 9
Summary of the dimensions, the exergy performances and the environmental impacts of the different studied tanks.

HTF/TESM Ref. tank Exergy opt. LCA opt. LCOE opt. = Three-criteria opt.

Air/MC Air/MC Air/CFA Air/MC Air/CFA Air/MC Air/CFA

Fe 0.6228 0.6000 0.7970 1.6204 1.8161 1.3295 1.5346

Fi 0.0156 0.0047 0.0033 0.0043 0.0053 0.0059 0.0043
Dt(m) 1.92 1.74 2.03 2.60 2.87 2.43 2.64
Lt(m) 3.08 2.90 2.54 1.60 1.58 1.82 1.72
Ds(mm) 29.9 8.2 6.8 11.2 15.3 14.3 11.3
V(m3) 8.90 6.89 8.20 8.49 10.24 8.43 9.47
ηex 95.6 % 97.0 % 97.7 % 96.0 % 96.3 % 96.0 % 96.9 %
τu, ex 56.8 % 73.5 % 76.3 % 59.6 % 61.4 % 60.0 % 66.4 %
GWP(kg CO2 eq) 57,100 57,600 36,000 53,400 30,500 53,100 30,400
CED(MJ eq) 13,070,000 3,440,000 23,000 000 1,140,000 600,000 1,110,000 730,000
ADP(kg Sb eq) 6.54 7.05 5.29 6.17 4.44 6.15 4.50
PM(kg PM2.5 eq) 53.0 52.1 36.6 49.3 32.2 49.1 32.5
LCA tot. (ca. year) 93 112 81 87 60 87 61
LCC(k€ ) 431 445 440 409 413 407 401
NPV(k€ ) 353 341 343 376 372 377 385
LCOE(c€/kWhth) 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1

References [10] G.P. Panayiotou, G. Bianchi, G. Georgiou, L. Aresti, M. Argyrou, R. Agathokleous,

K. Tsamos, S. Tassou, G. Florides, S. Kalogirou, P. Christodoulides, Preliminary
assessment of waste heat potential in major european industries, Energy Procedia
[1] M.M. Rahman, A.O. Oni, E. Gemechu, A. Kumar, Assessment of energy storage
123 (Sep. 2017) 335–345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.263.
technologies: a review, Energy Convers. Manag. 223 (Nov. 2020), 113295, https://
[11] I. Johnson, W.T. Choate, A. Davidson, Waste Heat Recovery. Technology and
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113295.
Opportunities in U.S. Industry, BCS, Inc., Laurel, MD (United States), 2008,
[2] S.A.M. Said, M. Waseeuddin, D.S.A. Simakov, A review on solar reforming systems,
https://doi.org/10.2172/1218716. Mar.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 59 (Jun. 2016) 149–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[12] L. Miró, J. Gasia, L.F. Cabeza, Thermal energy storage (TES) for industrial waste
rser.2015.12.072.
heat (IWH) recovery: a review, Appl. Energy 179 (Oct. 2016) 284–301, https://doi.
[3] G. Caputo, D. Mazzei, M.F. Sgroi, Methane/hydrogen mixtures from concentrated
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.147.
solar energy: the METISOL project, in: M. De Falco, A. Basile (Eds.), Enriched
[13] M. Papapetrou, G. Kosmadakis, A. Cipollina, U. La Commare, G. Micale, Industrial
Methane: The First Step Towards the Hydrogen Economy, Springer International
waste heat: estimation of the technically available resource in the EU per industrial
Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 37–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22192-2_
sector, temperature level and country, Appl. Therm. Eng. 138 (Jun. 2018)
3.
207–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.043.
[4] S. Abanades, L. André, Design and demonstration of a high temperature solar-
[14] A.M. López-Sabirón, A. Aranda-Usón, M.D. Mainar-Toledo, V.J. Ferreira,
heated rotary tube reactor for continuous particles calcination, Appl. Energy 212
G. Ferreira, Environmental profile of latent energy storage materials applied to
(Feb. 2018) 1310–1320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.019.
industrial systems, Sci. Total Environ. 473–474 (Mar. 2014) 565–575, https://doi.
[5] S.Q.S. Ahmad, R.J. Hand, C. Wieckert, Use of concentrated radiation for solar
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.013.
powered glass melting experiments, Sol. Energy 109 (Nov. 2014) 174–182, https://
[15] A. Gil, M. Medrano, I. Martorell, A. Lázaro, P. Dolado, B. Zalba, L.F. Cabeza, State
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.08.007.
of the art on high temperature thermal energy storage for power generation. Part
[6] L.G. Rosa, Solar heat for materials processing: a review on recent achievements and
1—Concepts, materials and modellization, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (1) (Jan.
a prospect on future trends, ChemEngineering 3 (4) (2019), 4, https://doi.org/
2010) 31–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.035.
10.3390/chemengineering3040083. Dec.
[16] P. Odru, Stockage de la chaleur: Stockage de chaleur sensible [Online]. Available,
[7] REN21, Renewables 2020 Global Status Report [Online]. Available, REN21
in: Tech. Ing. Stock. Lénergie Base Doc. TIP202WEB - Ressour. Énergétiques Stock.,
Secretariat, Paris, 2020, https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
vol. Base documentaire: TIB638DUO, no. ref. article: be8597, 2017, https://www.
gsr_2020_full_report_en.pdf. (Accessed 1 February 2021).
techniques-ingenieur.fr/base-documentaire/energies-th4/stockage-de-l-energie-
[8] ADEME, Excess heat [Online]. Available, 2017th ed., ADEME, Angers, 2018, htt
42638210/stockage-de-la-chaleur-be8597/. (Accessed 19 June 2020).
ps://www.ademe.fr/excess-heat. (Accessed 11 June 2020).
[17] T. Fasquelle, Q. Falcoz, P. Neveu, J.-F. Hoffmann, Numerical simulation of a 50
[9] H. Jouhara, A.G. Olabi, Editorial: industrial waste heat recovery, Energy 160 (Oct.
MWe parabolic trough power plant integrating a thermocline storage tank, Energy
2018) 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.013.
Convers. Manag. 172 (Sep. 2018) 9–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.07.006.

14
D. Le Roux et al.
[18] G. Heath, C. Turchi, T. Decker, J. Burkhardt, C. Kutscher, Life cycle assessment of
thermal energy storage: two-tank indirect and thermocline, in: ASME 2009 3rd
International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Volume 2, San Francisco,
California, USA, Sep., 2010, pp. 689–690, https://doi.org/10.1115/ES2009-
90402.
[19] P. Galione, C. Pérez-Segarra, I. Rodríguez, S. Torras, J. Rigola, Numerical
evaluation of multi-layered solid-PCM thermocline-like tanks as thermal energy
storage systems for CSP applications, Energy Procedia 69 (May 2015) 832–841,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.099.
[20] J.E. Pacheco, S.K. Showalter, W.J. Kolb, Development of a molten-salt thermocline
thermal storage system for parabolic trough plants, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124 (2)
(May 2002) 153–159, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1464123.
[21] D. Brosseau, J.W. Kelton, D. Ray, M. Edgar, K. Chisman, B. Emms, Testing of
thermocline filler materials and molten-salt heat transfer fluids for thermal energy
storage systems in parabolic trough power plants, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 127 (1) (Feb.
2005) 109–116, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1824107.
[22] J.S. Yoo, Design Optimization Study on the Single Tank Packed-bed Thermal
Energy Storage System [Online]. Available, Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls,
ID (United States), Nov. 2018, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1734766.
[23] B. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Liu, Z. Dai, System-level performance optimization of
molten-salt packed-bed thermal energy storage for concentrating solar power,
Appl. Energy 226 (Sep. 2018) 225–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.05.081.
[24] B. Cárdenas, T.R. Davenne, J.P. Rouse, S.D. Garvey, Effect of design parameters on
the exergy efficiency of a utility-scale packed bed, J. Energy Storage 18 (Aug.
2018) 267–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.05.005.
[25] C. Odenthal, F. Klasing, T. Bauer, Parametric study of the thermocline filler
concept based on exergy, J. Energy Storage 17 (Jun. 2018) 56–62, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.est.2018.01.009.
[26] W. Lou, Y. Fan, L. Luo, Single-tank thermal energy storage systems for
concentrated solar power: flow distribution optimization for thermocline evolution
management, J. Energy Storage 32 (Dec. 2020), 101749, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.est.2020.101749.
[27] J. Weiss, I. Ortega-Fernández, R. Müller, D. Bielsa, T. Fluri, Improved thermocline
initialization through optimized inlet design for single-tank thermal energy storage
systems, J. Energy Storage 42 (Oct. 2021), 103088, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2021.103088.
[28] M.A. Keilany, M. Milhé, J.-J. Bézian, Q. Falcoz, G. Flamant, Experimental
evaluation of vitrified waste as solid fillers used in thermocline thermal energy
storage with parametric analysis, J. Energy Storage 29 (Jun. 2020), 101285,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101285.
[29] K.E. Elfeky, A.G. Mohammed, Q. Wang, Thermo-economic evaluation of
thermocline thermal energy storage tank for CSP plants, Chem. Eng. Trans. 88
(Nov. 2021) 241–246, https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2188040.
[30] A. Gautam, R.P. Saini, Performance analysis and system parameters optimization
of a packed bed solar thermal energy storage having spherical packing elements
with pores, J. Energy Storage 48 (Apr. 2022), 103993, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2022.103993.
[31] O. Maaliou, B.J. McCoy, Optimization of thermal energy storage in packed
columns, Sol. Energy 34 (1) (Jan. 1985) 35–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-
092X(85)90090-8.
[32] C. Choudhury, P.M. Chauhan, H.P. Garg, Economic design of a rock bed storage
device for storing solar thermal energy, Sol. Energy 55 (1) (Jul. 1995) 29–37,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(95)00023-K.
[33] A.J. White, J.D. McTigue, C.N. Markides, Analysis and optimisation of packed-bed
thermal reservoirs for electricity storage applications, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J.
Power Energy 230 (7) (2016) 739–754, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0957650916668447. Nov.
[34] J. Marti, L. Geissbühler, V. Becattini, A. Haselbacher, A. Steinfeld, Constrained
multi-objective optimization of thermocline packed-bed thermal-energy storage,
Appl. Energy 216 (Apr. 2018) 694–708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.12.072.
[35] S. Trevisan, Y. Jemmal, R. Guedez, B. Laumert, Packed bed thermal energy storage:
a novel design methodology including quasi-dynamic boundary conditions and
techno-economic optimization, J. Energy Storage 36 (Apr. 2021), 102441, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.102441.
[36] D. Le Roux, Y. Lalau, B. Rebouillat, P. Neveu, R. Olivès, Thermocline thermal
energy storage optimisation combining exergy and life cycle assessment, Energy
Convers. Manag. 248 (Nov. 2021), 114787, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.114787.
[37] A.Haghighat Mamaghani, B. Najafi, A. Shirazi, F. Rinaldi, 4E analysis and multi-
objective optimization of an integrated MCFC (molten carbonate fuel cell) and ORC
(organic Rankine cycle) system [Online]. Available, Energy 82 (2015) 650–663,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.074.
[38] Z. Luo, S. Yang, N. Xie, W. Xie, J. Liu, A. Souley, Z. Liu, Multi-objective capacity
optimization of a distributed energy system considering economy, environment
15
Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022) 105776
and energy, Energy Convers. Manag. 200 (Nov. 2019), 112081, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112081.
[39] N. Xie, Z. Liu, Z. Luo, J. Ren, C. Deng, S. Yang, Multi-objective optimization and life
cycle assessment of an integrated system combining LiBr/H2O absorption chiller
and Kalina cycle, Energy Convers. Manag. 225 (Dec. 2020), 113448, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113448.
[40] S. Wang, C. Liu, S. Zhang, Q. Li, E. Huo, Multi-objective optimization and fluid
selection of organic rankine cycle (ORC) system based on economic-
environmental-sustainable analysis, Energy Convers. Manag. 254 (Feb. 2022),
115238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115238.
[41] S. Wang, L. Zhang, C. Liu, Z. Liu, S. Lan, Q. Li, X. Wang, Techno-economic-
environmental evaluation of a combined cooling heating and power system for gas
turbine waste heat recovery, Energy 231 (Sep. 2021), 120956, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2021.120956.
[42] A. Touzo, R. Olivès, G. Dejean, D.Pham Minh, M.El Hafi, J.F. Hoffmann, X. Py,
Experimental and numerical analysis of a packed-bed thermal energy storage
system designed to recover high temperature waste heat: an industrial scale up,
J. Energy Storage 32 (2020), 101894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101894.
[43] Eco-Tech Ceram, ecotechceram.com, Eco-Tech Ceram. (2021) accessed Nov. 16,
https://www.ecotechceram.com/.
[44] B. Rebouillat, Q. Falcoz, P. Neveu, 2nd law analysis of thermocline – heat storage
system [Online]. Available, in: ECOS 2019, Wrocław, Poland, 2019,
pp. 3065–3076, http://www.s-conferences.eu/ecos2019.
[45] Y. Lalau, X. Py, A. Meffre, R. Olives, Comparative LCA between current and
alternative waste-based TES for CSP, Waste Biomass Valoriz. 7 (6) (Dec. 2016)
1509–1519, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9549-6.
[46] J.J. Burkhardt, G.A. Heath, C.S. Turchi, Life cycle assessment of a parabolic trough
concentrating solar power plant and the impacts of key design alternatives,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (6) (Mar. 2011) 2457–2464, https://doi.org/10.1021/
es1033266.
[47] Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Joint Research Centre),
Normalisation method and data for environmental footprints [Online]. Available,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2014, https://data.
europa.eu/doi/10.2788/16415. (Accessed 8 October 2021).
[48] ADEME, base-impacts.ademe [Online]. Available, in: Base-Impacts(R), 2021,
http://www.base-impacts.ademe.fr/bilan-produit.
[49] Y.K. Azoumah, A.K. Tossa, R.A. Dake, Towards a labelling for green energy
production units: case study of off-grid solar PV systems, Energy 208 (Oct. 2020),
118149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118149.
[50] D. Aussel, P. Neveu, D. Tsuanyo, Y. Azoumah, On the equivalence and comparison
of economic criteria for energy projects: application on PV/diesel hybrid system
optimal design, Energy Convers. Manag. 163 (May 2018) 493–506, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.050.
[51] D. Tsuanyo, Y. Azoumah, D. Aussel, P. Neveu, Modeling and optimization of
batteryless hybrid PV (photovoltaic)/diesel systems for off-grid applications,
Energy 86 (Jun. 2015) 152–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.128.
[52] K. Attonaty, Stockage d’électricité associant un cycle thermodynamique à haut
rendement avec un stockage thermique à haute température [Online]. Available,
Pau et des Pays de l’Ardour, Pau, 2018, http://www.theses.fr/2018PAUU3014.
(Accessed 7 January 2020).
[53] J. Spelling, Hybrid Solar Gas-turbine Power Plants: A Thermoeconomic Analysis
[Online]. Available, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2013, htt
p://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-121315. (Accessed 1 June 2021).
[54] [Online]. AvailableR. Turton, J.A. Shaeiwitz, D. Bhattacharyya, W.B. Whiting
(Eds.), Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, 5th edition, Prentice
Hall, Boston, 2018, https://vk.com/doc612380759_594458114?hash=3603321f5
347bc0697.
[55] K.Y. Wang, R.E. West, F. Kreith, P. Lynn, High-temperature sensible-heat storage
options, Energy 10 (10) (Oct. 1985) 1165–1175, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-
5442(85)90032-5.
[56] M. Peters, T.S. Schmidt, D. Wiederkehr, M. Schneider, Shedding light on solar
technologies—a techno-economic assessment and its policy implications, Energy
Policy 39 (10) (Oct. 2011) 6422–6439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2011.07.045.
[57] Comparateur d’électricité, Le prix du kWh en 2021: calculs, tarifs, prix moyen,
https://www.comparateur-electricite.fr/prix-kwh/, 2021, https://www.comparat
eur-electricite.fr/. (Accessed 24 June 2022).
[58] Eurostat, Prix du gaz par type d’utilisateur, May 13, 2022, https://ec.europa.eu/e
urostat/databrowser/view/ten00118/default/table?lang=fr. (Accessed 13 June
2022).
[59] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2) (Apr. 2002) 182–197,
https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
[60] C.-L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications A State-of-the-art Survey, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1981, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.