Economic and Environmental Assessment of Large-scale Electro-chemical and Flywheel Energy Storage Systems for Stationary Applications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There are few cost and environmental feasibility assessments of energy storage systems for utility-scale applications. The development of techno-economic and environmental performance indicators is crucial to make an informed decision on future development and deployment of energy storage technologies. This thesis aims to address the knowledge and literature gaps in economic and environmental aspects of energy storage systems for stationary applications. Scientific principles-based techno-economic and life cycle assessment models were developed for seven energy storage technologies: sodium-sulfur (Na-S), lithium-ion (Li-ion), valve-regulated lead-acid (VRLA), nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd), vanadium redox flow (VRF), steel rotor flywheel, and composite rotor flywheel. Four stationary application scenarios were evaluated. These are bulk energy storage, transmission and distribution investment deferral, frequency regulation, and support of voltage regulation. With the rapidly growing number of electric vehicles, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology can play an important role in stabilizing electricity grids. An assessment is necessary to develop performance metrics for the V2G system and compare it with stationary energy storage systems. Therefore, a special case for an electro-chemical energy storage system, V2G, was investigated to evaluate its techno-economic feasibility in Canadian weather conditions. The system components were designed in such a way that the power and energy of each application scenario are met. Then, cost functions were developed, followed by estimation of the life cycle cost and the levelized cost of storage (LCOS). The environmental assessment involves building material and energy inventories and translating them to net energy ratio (NER) and life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions values. The LCOS ranges from $199-$941/MWh for the Na-S, $180-$1032/MWh for the Li-ion, $410-$1184/MWh for the VRLA, $802-$1991/MWh for the Ni-Cd, and $267-$3794/MWh for the VRF, depending on the application scenario. The life cycle GHG emissions range from 715-784 kg-CO2eq/MWh for Na-S, 625-659 kg-CO2eq/MWh for Li-ion, 749-803 kg-CO2eq/MWh for VRLA, 742-806 kg-CO2eq/MWh for Ni-Cd, and 800-963 kg-CO2eq/MWh for VRF. Because they have a longer cycle life, lower capital cost, and higher energy density, Li-ion and Na-S energy storage systems outperform other battery storage technologies. The composite rotor flywheel has a higher LCOS ($189.94/MWh) than the steel rotor flywheel ($146.41/MWh), mainly due to the higher composite material cost compared to steel. However, with respect to the life cycle GHG emissions, the composite rotor flywheel has a higher performance (48.9-95.0 kg-CO2eq/MWh) than the steel rotor (75.2-121.4 kg-CO2eq/MWh), mainly due to the higher operational energy consumption in the steel rotor flywheel to compensate for the frictional loss. In the techno-economic assessment of the V2G system, the weather conditions in four Canadian provinces were considered. The LCOS values for the V2G system range from $176.97/MWh in Quebec to $233.08/MWh in Ontario when it is used for energy arbitrage. When the V2G system is used for frequency regulation, the LCOS values range from $271.42/MWh in Quebec to $329.93/MWh in Ontario. The LCOS varies by province mainly because of differences in electricity prices and average ambient temperatures. The framework developed in this research can be used for assessment of other energy pathways. Insights from the study will help industry and electric utility companies understand the economic and environmental performances of electro-chemical and flywheel energy storage systems and ultimately help them make informed policy and investment decisions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».