See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224580939

Optimised autonomous power system

Conference Paper · August 2009

Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

7 287

3 authors:

Pio Alessandro Lombardi Paul Vasquez

Fraunhofer Institute for Factory Operation and Automation IFF Escuela Politécnica Nacional
104 PUBLICATIONS   1,497 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Z.A. Styczynski
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg
273 PUBLICATIONS   2,207 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MESH4U -Multi Energy Storage Hub For reliable and commercial systems Utilization View project

SGESS >Smart Grid Energy Storage System< mobile 1MW battery system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pio Alessandro Lombardi on 23 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS CALGARY 2009
http : //www.cigre.org

Optimised Autonomous Power System

P. LOMBARDI, P. VASQUEZ, Z.A. STYCZYNSKI

Otto von Guericke Universität Magdeburg
Germany

SUMMARY
Renewable energy sources are increasingly playing a key role in the operation and evolution of the
power electric systems. However, their incorporation bring with it diverse concerns. A very important
issue has to deal with the fluctuations of the renewable resources. Compressed air-based energy
storage systems (CAES), with favorable characteristics are a sound means for allowing the efficient
integration of the intermittent renewable-based sources.
This paper is focused on evaluating the economical and environmental effects of incorporating a
CAES plant within an autonomous power electric system composed of a combined heat and power
plant (CHP) and a high penetration of generators based on renewable sources (wind and photovoltaic).
The CHP plant uses a gas turbine as the prime mover and an external boiler for the thermal peak load
demand. The stored compressed air is used to partially or totally drive the gas turbine of the CHP
plant.
In order to properly evaluate the impact of incorporating CAES within the APS, the energy
production costs as well as the environmental benefit of using electric energy storage systems -
expressed in terms of CO2 equivalent- are estimated. Sensitivity analyses regarding the fuel prices as
well as the sizing of the CAES plant and of the renewable resources-based generators are performed.

KEYWORDS

CO2 equivalent, compressed air, economic analysis, energy management system, energy
storage systems, energy production costs, renewable energy sources.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 I. Introduction

The ever increasing demand for energy requires a permanent upgrading of the Power Electric
Systems (PES) components. Since the incorporation of means of production based on renewable
resources, the task of efficiently driving the PES’ operation and evolution faces new problems. One of
the major concerns regarding this fact is the unavoidable stochastic intermittence of the renewable
resources. In fact, during both periods of lack of renewable energy sources and during circumstances
of capacity surplus, there are risks of having insecure or inefficient operative conditions. This is
especially true in Autonomous Power Electric Systems (APS), which should be able to autonomously
cope with such risks.
On the other hand, improvements of Energy Storage Systems (ESS) are being achieved in response
to the diverse needs of the power systems. Hence, it is expected that advantageous technical and
economical characteristics allow their application in: peak shaving, bulk energy trading, integration of
intermittent renewable energy sources, island grid, ancillary services, uninterrupted power supply
(UPS), flicker compensation and voltage sag correction, among others. Such functions can be carried
out by taking advantage of the diverse existing energy storage technologies. Batteries, flywheels,
super-capacitors, compressed air energy storage (CAES), superconducting magnetic energy storage
(SMES), pumped hydro electric storage and hydrogen storage [1], [2] and [3], can be suitably
exploited depending on the PES’ requirements.
In this paper, in order to analyze its effects in the global performance of an APS with a high
penetration level of renewable sources, the promising ESS known as CAES [4], [5] and [6] is oriented
to support the integration of renewable energy sources. In fact, since it could power the gas turbine of
a plant with compressed air stored during the surplus of renewable resources, and due to its large-scale
storage capacity, CAES could successfully carry out the task of compensating the lack of renewable
resources and, furthermore, storing the surplus for reasonable periods of time [4].
In Section II, an overview of the CAES technology principles as well as a set of advantageous
features that this kind of plants exhibit are described. In Section III, in order to evaluate numerically
the impact of a CAES plant in an APS with high penetration of renewable-based sources, a case study
is proposed. Section IV depicts essential methodological guidelines useful to reasonably model, with
hourly resolution, the procedure of an EMS for operating the proposed APS as well as to properly
asses its global performance. The most important obtained results are detailed in Section V. Final
conclusions close this paper in Section VI.

II. Compressed Air based Energy System (CAES)

ESS such as flywheels and supercapacitors exhibit lower storage capacities with respect to the
pumped hydro storage systems. Batteries and hydrogen based systems in general exhibit high costs
[14] and a relative low number of charge/discharge cycles.
Although pumped hydro storage has been extensively used -provided that the orography of the
country allows it-, Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) systems, which in terms of capacity are
located near the pumped hydro storage systems, are a promising resource for contributing to the
integration of the renewable sources.
The CAES concept is more than 40 years old. Two commercial plants have been operating since
1978 and 1991, one in Huntorf Germany (290 MW) and the other near McIntosh, Alabama, USA (110
MW), respectively. Although other CAES plants have been studied and designed, unfortunately they
were not built due to various reasons [4].
The conventional cycle of the CAES plants basically involves a charging stage which entails storing
energy in a reservoir in the form of compressed air (compression), and a stage where the reservoir is
discharged in order to drive a turbine (usually a gas turbine) for producing electricity
The air is compressed within the reservoir by means of a compressor (centrifugal or axial) which is
driven by an electrical motor. Although, reservoirs can be naturally occurring aquifers (similar to
conventional natural gas storage), solution-mined salt caverns or constructed rock caverns, aquifer
storage is by far the least expensive type [3].

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 The compressed air together with the gas (natural or biogas), is burned in the combustion chamber,
as a conventional gas turbine plant, in order to move a turbine.
In a conventional gas turbine plant, around two third of the energy produced by the turbine is used
to drive the compressor and the remaining energy for generating electricity. By using a CAES plant,
the entire energy produced by the turbine is only use to generate electricity. Under these lines, the
CAES technology has the advantages of both the peak-load gas turbine power plants and the pumped
storage schemes.
Most relevant components for a conventional cycle of a CAES plant, [4], [7], [8] and [9], include:
1. A reservoir for compressed air storage.
2. A motor-generator with clutches on both ends, as a motor for driving the compressors or as
a generator to produce electricity.
3. Multi-stage compressors that condense the air into the reservoir. Intercoolers to reduce the
power requirements during the compression cycle and an after cooler to reduce the storage
volume requirements.
4. A combustion chamber to heat the air via combustion of fuel before entering to the
expansion system.
5. An expansion system composed of high and low pressure expansion turbines which are
connected to the generator mode when it is necessary to produce electricity.
6. A control system for operating the turbine, the compressors and auxiliaries, and to switch
from the motor mode to the generator mode.
7. A thermal storage system that stores the heat produced during the compression phase in
order to release it when the compressed air flows out of the reservoir for driving the turbine.
8. Heat exchangers for capturing and releasing heat from/to air.
In order to increase the efficiency of the conventional cycle of a CAES plant design, a variety of
different thermodynamic cycles may be applied.
Recuperated cycle: includes a heat recovery to preheat the air from the reservoir before going to the
combustion chamber.
Combined Cycle: includes a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) which recovers the exhaust
heat from the low pressure expansion to produce steam, which in turn drives a steam turbine,
providing additional power for the plant.
Cogeneration Cycle: like the combined cycle it includes a Heat Recovery Generator for producing
steam or hot water mainly used for industrial processes or for space heating applications.
Steam Injected Cycle: like the combined cycle includes a HRSG with the difference that the steam is
added to the airflow from the storage reservoir to increase the mass flow through the expansion turbine
during the generation cycle, thereby increasing the output power level from the plant.
CAES Cycle with Humidification: the stored air is humidified in an air saturator before being
injected into the combustion turbine reducing the mass of air needed to be stored per unit of power
output. Consequently, the size of the reservoir could be smaller than cycles without humidification.
Adiabatic CAES Cycle: the thermal energy produced during the compression stage is stored and
used later to reheat the compressed air before the expansion stage. It is important to mention that key
components of this cycle are thermal storage systems and recovery materials.
For conclude this section, some advantageous features that CAES exhibit over other ESS are cited
[4], [7], [8] and [9]:
• Costs of the CAES plants are relatively low with significant energy storage capacities.
• CAES plants provide unlimited flexibility for load management tasks.
• CAES plants offer fast start times and black start capability.
• The ramping rate of the CAES plants is around 30 % of the maximal load per minute.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 • CAES plants can be constructed using commercially available equipment
• Most components of the CAES plants have long life times (over 50 years).

III. Problem Definition

This work analyzes the behavior of an APS, which is basically composed of a conventional
equivalent power plant -more specifically a combined heat and power plant (CHP)-, and renewable
energy sources-based generators -more specifically a wind farm and a PV equivalent plant, (see Fig.
1). The prime mover of the CHP plant is a Gas Turbine (GT) and the CHP plant is heat driven.
Energy suppliers should meet the thermal and electrical requirements of the industrial consumers as
well as the electrical requirements of the residential consumers (a city with 20,000 habitants), see
Table I.
TABLE I. ELECTRICAL AND THERMAL POWER DEMANDED BY THE CONSUMERS
TOTAL Electrical Thermal
Demand (MW) (MW)
City 20 0
Industry 15 25
zone

Fig. 1: Scheme of the analyzed APS. The CAES plant manages the integration of the renewable
sources.
In the analyzed power system the electricity generated by renewable sources plays a key role. In
fact, in order to decrease the dependence on fossil sources and to be as environmental friendly as
possible, it was assumed that 20 % of annual electricity consumption has to be generated by wind and
photovoltaic plants. For accomplishing this aim, an intelligent Energy Management System (EMS)
coordinates in an efficient way, the power flow coming from different generators. Under the
aforementioned assumption, the EMS gives priority to dispatching energy to the generators based on
renewable energy sources.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 In case of power surplus, the EMS activates a compressor which charges the reservoir up to a
defined pressure. If by means of such an operating procedure it would be not possible to eliminate the
entire surplus, then the EMS reduces first the electrical power of the CHP (up to 20% of the nominal
power) and then if necessary, it reduces the power coming from renewable sources. Since the CHP
plant is heat driven and since the value of the heat to power ratio is one, reducing the electrical power,
also reduces the thermal power. Therefore, an external boiler is required in order to manage the power
surplus and cover the heat demand.
On the other hand, during electricity deficit, in order to relieve such a condition, the compressed air
stored in the reservoir can be used for producing electricity which is injected into the grid. In such a
case the EMS decreases the power consumed by the compressor of the GT plant by reducing the air
flow rate elaborated by it (see equation 7). Then, it opens a valve which puts the compressed air
coming from the reservoir into the GT plant combustion chamber. Through such an operation control
the generated power increases (see equation 9). The amount of the compressed air exiting from the
reservoir depends on the amount of the electrical deficit that should be covered and, obviously on the
amount of stored air available in the reservoir.
If the stored air can not cover the entire deficit, the EMS will increase the capacity of CHP (if
possible). Such an operation control implies that a part of the thermal energy is wasted. If such an
operating procedure is not enough for meeting the demand, the EMS sheds the load according to a
previous Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with industrial consumers. Through such a procedure, the
demand is suitably managed during the deficit conditions and, since the Value Of the Loss Load
(VOLL) has decreased, the deficit costs are notably reduced.
In order to evaluate the impact of the incorporation of the CAES plant as storage device within an
APS, two scenarios are proposed. In the first scenario the behavior of the network without the CAES
plant is analyzed, while in the second one, the APS is provided with a CAES plant as ESS. Also, in the
first scenario the EMS coordinates the power flow as efficiently as possible.
Besides modeling in a suitable manner the procedure executed by the EMS, the aim of this study is
to determine the optimal pressure inside the reservoir, then the capacity of the stored air, which
optimizes the global performance of the APS (estimated both in an economical and environmental
terms) for a horizon time given.
For achieving this aim, the performance of the proposed APS is evaluated based on diverse
operative criteria, which are expressed both in economic and environmental terms evaluated by the
Objective Function (OF) and by the production of CO2 equivalent. Related to the OF, the authors
consider not only the electricity generation and storage costs, but also the costs due to the block of the
industrial process (estimable through the VOLL parameter) and the costs of not exploiting “green
energy” resources (evaluated as external costs associated to the electricity generation by GT).
Therefore, the problem of optimizing the capacity of the CAES plant can be formulated according to
(3) as follows:
8760
OF = min ∑ (∑G j ,t + St + Et + CVOLL,t ) (3)
t =1 j

Subject to active power balance constraint (4), thermal power balance constraint (5), and CAES
storage pressure limits (6).
∑P - ∑Pi j
=0 (4)
i j

∑(Q i
- Qj ) = 0 (5)
i,j

23(bar) ≤ pCAES ≤ 53(bar) (6)

where,
Gc j : Electrical and thermal generation costs of the generator j
Sc : Storage costs
Ec : Costs for not generating from renewable resources
CVOLL : Costs due to deficit Value of the Loss Load
Pi : Generated active power
Pj : Active power demand
Qi : Generated thermal power

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
Qj : Thermal power demand
pCAES : Pressure in the reservoir

The generation costs are estimated as Levelized Unit Energy Costs (LUEC). The costs for not
generating from renewable energy sources are assessed as external costs. Such external costs, for a GT
power plant have been estimated between 10 and 40 €/MWh [10]. In this study external costs are set to
21 €/MWh. The value of the VOLL, in this work is set to 4,000 €/MWh. In Table II additional costs to
be considered are summarized.
TABLE II. LIST OF VARIOUS COSTS
Parameter Value Unit
Investment cost of the CHP1 1,117 (€/kWel)
O&M fix cost of the CHP1 14,896 (€/year)
O&M variable cost of the
0.006 (€/kWhel)
CHP1
Life time of the CHP 25 (years)
Investment cost of the boiler1 141.51 (€/kWth)
O&M fix cost of the boiler1 29,304 (€/year)
O&M variable cost of the
0.0075 (€/kWhth)
boiler1
Life time of the boiler 30 (years)
Fuel price (natural gas) 2 17 (€/MWh)
Investment cost of the wind
1,000 (€/kW)
park2
O&M cost of the wind farm2 38 (€/kW)
Life time of the wind farm 20 (years)
Investment cost of the PV2 2,500 (€/kW)2
O&M cost of the PV2 29.4 (€/kW)
Life time of the PV 20 (years)
Investment cost of the CAES 3 (€/kWhel)
Life time of the CAES 50 (years)
Discount rate 6 (%)
VOLL 4,000 (€/MWh)
1
[11] , 2[12]

In order to simulate the behavior of the network, limited input data obtained from two German
network operators were used. From those measured data, synthetic profiles that describe both the
generation of the wind park and of the PV and the electrical load of the city, are obtained. Specifically,
the wind profile was obtained evaluating the transition probability matrix –so called Markov matrix-,
then two random numbers were generated for each time step. The first is for generating the transitions
from one state to the other following the probabilities of the Markov matrix. The latter is to put an
equally distributed noise with the width of ± 5 % of rated power to ensure that the 10 % interval is
filled out with values.
For the profiles of the PV plant and the city, the measurement data were normalized to the measured
peak load. Then the hourly average value was computed along with the standard deviation of
generated (for the PV plant) and consumed (for the city) power for three periods of the year.
Furthermore, workdays, weekends and holidays were distinguished. By means of this procedure six
daily profiles for one year were obtained.
Due to the lack of information on industrial processes, the electrical and thermal profiles of the
industrial zone were obtained from data found in literature [13].

IV. Methodological Guidelines

In this study it has been assumed that the CHP plant uses a GT, which burns natural gas, as prime
mover. A GT plant is composed by a compressor (usually axial) a combustion chamber and a turbine.
The compressor condenses air from ambient pressure to a defined pressure, then the compressed air is

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
heated in the combustion chamber, which fires fuel in a gaseous state (e.g. natural gas), and finally the
compressed air together with the fuel is expanded into the turbine. For cogeneration applications a
Heat Recovery System (HR) is used for recovering the thermal energy of the exhaust gases in order to
produce steam or hot water. Generally the compressor is driven by the turbine and it absorbs circa two
third of the power produced during the expansion, while the remaining power is used to generate
electricity.
A. Uncertainty in Wind and PV profiles
A planning approach which considers a rigorous modeling of the behavior of the renewable
resources would entail formulating a stochastic optimization problem. However, since the major aim
of this work lies in evaluating the impact of incorporating, within an APS, a CAES plant, the hourly
availability of the renewable resources is modeled by means of expected values. Under this
perspective, the volatility of the renewable resources is reasonably incorporated while at the same
time, a deterministic formulation provides a valid approach for facing this comparative analysis.
B. Procedure of the EMS for Operating the APS
A fundamental task considered in this work in order to suitably evaluate the performance of the APS
is the dynamic modeling of the decisions which should be carried out hourly for the EMS. Indeed, the
developed algorithm, depending on the hourly-available capacity of renewable resources, the capacity
of the CHP plant and the current energy stored by the CAES plant, should be able to decide about the
operation of all the APS’s components while the surplus of renewable resources and the deficit of
energy can be suitably handled.
C. CAES plant mathematical modeling
Generally in a CAES plant the compressor is driven either by the turbine or by an electrical motor.
For such a purpose, couplings by means of clutches are needed. In this study it has been assumed that
two independent compressors are installed. One is directly driven by the turbine of the GT plant, while
the second one is moved by an electrical motor which use the electricity surplus.
During the compression phase the mechanical energy is converted into compressed air and heat.
Since the consumed power during the compression depends also on the temperature of the air (see
equation 8), the compression phase for the CAES plant can be divided into stages and the air can be
cooled between them. In this way both the air temperature and the energy loss are limited. Since it is
considered that the storage volume of the reservoir is constant, to cool the compressed air offers not
only the advantage of reducing the consumed power, but also the advantage to store a bigger amount
of air (at a defined maximal pressure of the reservoir, see equation 7)

p ⋅V = m ⋅ R ⋅ T (7)

where
p is the maximal pressure inside the reservoir
V is the volume of the reservoir
m is the amount of air inside the reservoir
R is the gas constant
T is the temperature inside the reservoir.
The power absorbed by the compression can be evaluated by equation 8:

⎛ ⎜⎜⎛ mc −1⎟⎟⎞ n ⎞ ⎛ n −1 T ⎞
WC = Ga ⋅ c p ⋅ T0 ⋅ ⎜ β ⎝ c ⎠ − 1⎟ ⋅ ⎜ 1 + ∑ fi ⎟
m

⎜ ⎟ ⎝
(8)
i =1 T0 ⎠
⎝ ⎠
where
ƒ Wc is the power to compress air
ƒ Ga is the air flow rate
ƒ cp is the constant pressure specific heat
ƒ T0 is the ambient temperature

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 ƒ β is the compression ratio
ƒ mc is the polytrophic exponent.
ƒ n are the number of the compression stages
ƒ Tfj is the final cooled air temperature after the stage j
The power produced during the expansion is similarly evaluated by 9:
TiT ⎛ mme −1 ⎞
WT = (Ga + Gf ) ⋅ c p ⋅ T0 ⋅ ⎜ β e − 1⎟ (9)
T0T ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where
ƒ WT is the power produced during the expansion
ƒ Gf is the fuel flow rate
ƒ TiT is the ingress turbine temperature of the gases (air and fuel)
ƒ ToT is the exit turbine temperature of the exhaust gases
ƒ me is the polytropic exponent
Finally, the electrical power produced by the generator and the thermal power recovered by the HR
are evaluated by means of (10) and (11), respectively:

WU = WT − WC (10)

Eth = (Ga + Gf ) ⋅ c p ⋅ (TOT − Tf ) ⋅ ε (11)

where
ƒ WU is the power produced by the electrical generator
ƒ Eth is the thermal power recovered by the HR
ƒ Tf is the ingress temperature of the fluid used for the cogeneration purpose
ƒ ε is the heat exchanger efficiency
D. CO2 equivalent estimation
In order to estimate the production of CO2 equivalent gases, the consumption of the burnt fuel has to
be estimated. It is evaluated through the equation of energetic balance in the combustion chamber
(12):

Gf ⋅ H i = (Ga + Gf ) ⋅ ( hit − hoc ) (12)

where
ƒ Hi is the heat low value of the fuel
ƒ hit is the enthalpy of the combusted gases before to enter in the turbine
ƒ hoc is the enthalpy of the compressed air after the compression phase.
The emissions of the CO2 equivalent are then computed according the IPCC established criteria and
through the emission factors (EF) of the fuel. In table III the EF for natural gas and the global warming
potential for the considered green house gases are listed.
TABLE III EMISSION FACTOR FOR NATURAL GAS ESTIMATED BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) [15]
Gas Emission Factor Global Warming
(g/GJ)1 Potential Factor
CO2 50620 1
N2O 0.2667 296
CH4 0.9702 23
E. Main parameters used to model the CHP and CAES plants
In table IV the main characteristics assumed in order to simulate the performance of the CHP plant
are listed. Such characteristics are common to many GT manufactures and can be easily found in
literature.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 TABLE IV MAIN PARAMETERS OF THE CHP PLANT
Parameters Unit
Maximal electric 25 (MW)
power
Maximal air flow 100 (kg/s)
rate
Maximal electric 32 %
efficiency
Compression ratio 23
Heat to power ratio 1
Inlet turbine 1636 (K)
temperature
Exit turbine 748 (K)
temperature
Thermal efficiency 75 %
of the HR
Heat low value of 48 (MJ/kg)
natural gas

V. Analysis of the Results

1) Scenario 1. APS without the CAES plant
Table V summarizes the main results obtained by analyzing the first scenario. In order to produce
20% of the demanded electricity with renewable energy sources, the capacity of wind power and PV
are 23.25 MW and 8.37 MW, respectively.
Fig. 2 illustrates how the EMS is able to coordinate the produced electrical power related to the
power demand. As aforementioned, during surplus conditions, the EMS can reduce the electrical
generation power of the CHP plant by up to 20 % of the nominal capacity. An external boiler is then
activated in order to cover the involved thermal deficit. If by means of such a procedure the electrical
power is not totally balanced, the EMS decreases the power coming from generators based on
renewable energy sources. Since the electrical efficiency of the CHP scales down to the generated
electrical power, the costs due to the reduction of the power are driven by the higher amount of the
fuel fired in the CHP and in the external boiler.
On the other hand, in the case of deficit the EMS reduces the power flowing to the industrial zone.
The deficit costs are evaluated by considering the VOLL parameter.
Although the EMS coordinates the power flow in an efficient way, the costs due to the deficit are
circa 25% of the total annual costs, while despite the high penetration of renewable energy, the costs
for not exploiting such energy are less than 1%. That is why the EMS decreases the CHP electrical
power first. As a consequence of such operative control, the annual average value of the electrical
efficiency of the CHP plant is around 24 % despite a nominal efficiency of the GT of 32%.
The annual CO2 equivalent production is more than 136,000 tons with an average value of 680 kg
pro MWh of electricity produced. This value is so high because of the low value of the average
electrical efficiency of the CHP.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 EMS procedure for the first scenario
40

Power (MW)
30

20
Demand
Total Capacity
EMS
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
One week (h)
Fig. 2: Smart power balance executed by the EMS

TABLE V. FIRST SCENARIO RELEVANT RESULTS

Parameters Unit
Pchp (MW) 25
Pwind (MW) 23,25
PPV (MW) 8,37
Surplusrenew
13,259
(MWh/year)
Deficitrenew (MWh/year) 1,328
ETotal (GWh/year) 191.07
Csurplus (M€/year) 0.072
Cdeficit (M€/year) 5.31
OF (M€/year) 20.15
CO2 eq. (tons/year) 136,000

2) Scenario 2. APS with the CAES plant

In this case, a new resource for managing the hourly power balance is incorporated in the EMS
procedure. In fact, in case of an electrical surplus, the EMS stores the electricity in a reservoir in the
form of compressed air. If the pressure in the reservoir reaches its maximal value, the EMS reduces
the electrical power of the CHP, therefore also in this case, an external boiler is needed for managing
the thermal power.
In case of a deficit, the EMS decreases the flow rate elaborated by the compressor of the GT plant.
By means of such a procedure the power consumed by the compressor also decreases. Then the EMS
opens the control valves in order to extract compressed air from the reservoir. If through such a
procedure the deficit is not yet covered the EMS reduces the power flowing to the industrial zone.
Fig. 3 shows how the EMS coordinates the power production and demand. In this scenario a
reservoir with a volume of 100,000 m3 has been assumed. Moreover it has been considered that the
maximal air pressure in the reservoir is 44 bar. During the surplus time, the compressor compresses air
in the reservoir, then its pressure increases. During deficit time the compressed air flows from the
reservoir to the combustion chamber of the GT plant, then the reservoir pressure decreases. Compared
to the first scenario, due to the operation of the CAES, the annual total costs decrease a 40%, while the
deficit costs represent only the 2% of the total annual costs. The annual CO2 equivalent decreases to
118,000 tons with a value of 480 kg pro MWh of electricity (see the table VI). Such reduction is due to
the increased overall electrical efficiency of the GT, in fact its average value reaches circa 39%.
In Fig 4 the two analyzed scenarios are graphically compared, and the advantages obtained thanks to
the utilization of the CAES are evident.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 Fig. 3: EMS operation and pressure variation in the reservoir

TABLE II SECOND SCENARIO RELEVANT RESULTS

Parameters Unit
Pchp (MW) 25
Pwind (MW) 23,25
PPV (MW) 8,37
Deficitrenew (MWh/year) 27.23
ETotal (GWh/year) 214.17
Cdeficit (M€/year) 0.109
OF (M€/year) 12.23
CO2 eq. (tons/year) 118,700

Fig. 4: Comparison between the first and the second scenario

Fig. 5 depicts the assessment of the optimal capacity of the reservoir. Such storage capacity is
expressed in terms of maximal pressure of the compressed air inside the reservoir. Although the
maximal reduction of the deficit costs occurs when the compressed air pressure inside the reservoir is
53 bar, the optimal pressure that minimizes the total costs is 44 bar. Such a storage capacity represents
an electrical back up capacity of 175 MWh (7 hours of autonomy at maximal electrical power).

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 Fig. 5: Assessment of the CAES plant optimal storage capacity

VI. Conclusions

An algorithm that is able to model the hourly procedure executed by an EMS for operating an APS
with a CAES plant as EES has been reasonably developed in order to evaluate the economical and the
environmental performances that a proposed test system exhibits during one year.
By comparing the performances of an APS both with and without CAES, diverse benefits that such
a storage technology offers for minimizing the total annual costs and the green house emissions have
been determined. In fact, by incorporating a CAES the total annual costs decrease by 40%. Also, with
regard to the environment a CAES gives the benefit of a 30%.CO2 equivalent decrease.
The benefits of the modeled CAES can still be improved by combining a heat recovery system with
a heat storage system. Under this configuration, the heat produced during the compression phase can
be recovered in order to warm up the compressed air before it is injected into the combustion chamber.
Therefore, both fuel consumption and green house emissions can be reduced.

VII. Bibliography

[1] F. Sahin, Design and development of a High-Speed Axial-Flux Permanent-Magnet machine,

Technical University Eindhoven, Turkey, Ph.D Dissertation, Chapter 2, pp. 7-21, 2001.
[2] S. R. Holme, Modelling and optimization of a permanent magnet machine in a flywheel, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Randse Afrikaanse University, Johannesburg South Africa, , Chapters 1 and 2, pp. 1
– 18, 24-32, 2003.
[3] Schoenung M., “Characteristics and Technologies for Long-vs. Short-Term Energy Storage. A
Study by the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program,” Sandia National Laboratories, March
2001, pp.1-6.
[4] Knoke S., EPRI Energy Storage Handbook: Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Chapter,
Energy International Inc., Bellevue, Washington, pp. 1-38.
[5] Cheung K. Y. C., Cheung S. T. H., De Silva R. G. N., Juvonen M. P. T., Singh R., Woo J. J.,
“Large-Scale Energy Storage Systems,” Imperial College London, ISE2 2002/2003 Supervisor
Dr T. J. W. Clarke, pp. 3,4, 16-19.
[6] Ridge Energy Storage & Grid Services, “The Economic Impact of CAES on Wind in TX, OK,
and NM,” Texas State Energy Conservation Office and US Department of Energy, USA, Jun.
2005, pp. 1-105.
[7] Najjar Y., Zaamout M. S., “Performance Analysis of compressed air energy storage (CAES)
plant for dry regions,” Energy Convers. Mgmt, Vol. 39, No. 15, pp. 1503-1511, Elsevier Science
Ltd., 1999.
[8] Bullough C., Gatzen C., Jakiel C., Koller M., Nowi A., Zunft S., “Advanced Adiabatic
Compressed Air Energy Storage for the Integration of Wind Energy,” Proceedings of the
European Wind Energy Conference, EWEC 2004, London UK, 22-25 Nov. 2004.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de
 [9] Grazzini G., Milazzo A., Thermodynamic analysis of CAES/TES systems for renewable energy
plants, Renewable Energy, Vol. 33, Elsevier, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.003, pp. 1998-2006.
[10] European Commission-External Costs, Research results on socio-environmental damages due to
electricity and transport.
[11] Word Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE), Projected costs of generating electricity (2005
Update) - WADE’s response to the report of the international energy agency and the nuclear
energy agency, August 2005.
[12] International energy agency and nuclear energy agency, projected costs of generating electricity,
2005 update, online: http://www.iea.org/.
[13] Energy & more energiebroker GMBH und Co. KG, online: http://www.stromportfolio
management.info.
[14] M. Kleimaier, U. Buenger, F. Crotogino, Ch. Gatzen, W. Glaunsinger, S.Huebner, M.
Koenemund, H. Landinger, T. Lebioda, W. Leonhard, D. U. Sauer, H. Webber, A. Wenzel, E.
Wolf, W. Woyke, S. Zunft Energy storage for improved operation of future energy supply
systems 2008 CIGRE Paris.
[15] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), http://www.epa.gov.

pio.lombardi@ovgu.de

View publication stats