Screening of adsorbent materials for small-scale compressed CO2 energy storage using pressure swing adsorption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing demand for efficient and sustainable energy storage solutions has accelerated the increased interest in novel energy storage technologies such as Compressed CO 2 Energy Storage (CCES). Within this domain, adsorption-coupled configurations are recent and sparse, indicating a field in early development. To date, published studies have evaluated CCES with adsorption beds investigating only one adsorbent: NaX zeolite, known for its high equilibrium capacity, and have employed temperature-swing adsorption despite its added complexity relative to pressure-swing adsorption (PSA). This study replaces the low-pressure CO 2 reservoir with a PSA bed to simplify gas recovery process during discharge. We developed a theoretical thermodynamic cycle analysis of CCES coupled to a material screening using equilibrium isotherm data for families of zeolites and activated carbons. This analysis aims to assess how adsorbent properties influence key metrics: usable CO 2 working capacity (under the specified isothermal process assumptions), energy-to-volume ratio (EVR), and round-trip efficiency (RTE). Storage (adsorption) and discharge (desorption) are modeled under near-ambient isothermal conditions (≈ 298–303 K) across pressure swings ranging from 1 to10 bar during storage and from 0.1 to 1 bar during discharge. Results show that the optimal adsorbent for adsorption-coupled CCES is not necessarily the one with the highest equilibrium loading (e.g. NaX) but the one that maximizes usable working capacity over the specified pressure swing; for above-atmospheric operation, high-silica CHA and Norit RB2 perform best. Quantitatively, EVR ranges from 2 to 10 kWh/m 3 and RTE from 30 to 70 %, contingent on operating conditions. These findings highlight the trade-off between energy density and system simplicity, offering a practical framework to guide adsorbent selection prior to detailed system design and dynamic modeling. • Adsorbent screening is key for compressed CO₂ energy storage optimization. • Absolute and relative gains are used to compare adsorbent performance. • Gas recovery is modeled via pressure swing with sub/super-atmospheric levels. • Dynamic working capacity is critical to system energy performance. • Zeolites and ACs show distinct trends based on material and pressure conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".