COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR BESS

Choon-koo Chang*, Mdachi Nixon Kerwa

KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School (KINGS)
Ulju-gun, Ulsan Korea 45014
Email: ckchang@kings.ac.ke, kerwa2@gmail.com

Abstract: Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) play a vital role in modern energy systems,
especially within Virtual Power Plants (VPPs), where they enable the integration of renewable energy
sources and grid stability. Efficient thermal management of BESS is essential for optimal battery
performance and safety. This paper provides a comprehensive review of thermal management systems
for BESS in VPPs, evaluating active liquid cooling, passive cooling and hybrid systems. We assess
their performance, safety features, reliability, cost-effectiveness and suitability for VPP applications.
Safety considerations, thermal runaway prevention, and system impact on BESS performance and
VPP efficiency are discussed. Practical recommendations are offered for selecting an appropriate
thermal management system based on geographic location and climate, emphasizing the importance
of optimizing BESS performance and sustainability within VPPs.

Keywords: Battery Energy Storage Systems, Thermal Management Systems, Virtual Power Plants,
Active Liquid Cooling, Passive Cooling, Hybrid Systems

1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1 Background of the study

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) have become pivotal components in modern energy systems, providing
essential support for the integration of renewable energy sources and ensuring grid stability. As the demand for sustainable
energy solutions increases, the efficiency and safety of BESS are of paramount importance. Proper thermal management is a key
factor in maintaining optimal battery performance, extending their lifespan, and safeguarding against potential safety hazards.
This paper presents a comparative review of various thermal management systems for BESS, focusing on their academic
significance and practical implications, particularly in the context of Virtual Power Plants (VPPs). Virtual Power Plants represent
a paradigm shift in energy management, aggregating distributed energy resources to create flexible and responsive energy
systems.
The literature surrounding thermal management for BESS highlights the significance of effective heat dissipation and
temperature regulation. Active liquid cooling systems have shown efficient thermal performance, allowing batteries to operate
within ideal temperature ranges. Passive cooling, on the other hand, offers simplicity and reduced maintenance requirements but
may face challenges during high-demand scenarios. Hybrid systems aim to capitalize on the strengths of both active and passive
approaches to strike a balance between performance and simplicity.
Despite the available research, a comprehensive comparative analysis of these thermal management systems within VPP
settings is lacking. Addressing this research gap, this study aims to provide valuable insights
into the strengths and limitations of different thermal management systems for BESS by systematically evaluating their
performance, safety features, reliability and cost-effectiveness. This study seeks to aid researchers, energy planners and VPP
operators in making informed decisions to enhance the efficiency and resilience of energy storage systems.
The following sections will delve into the summaries of relevant literature, identify the most important gaps and inconsistencies
and present the core research problem and specific objectives. The scope of the study will be defined to encompass a thorough
comparative review, with practical recommendations for optimizing thermal management strategies for BESS within VPPs.
Through this study, there is an endeavor to contribute to the advancement of sustainable energy solutions and support the
transition towards a more resilient and eco-friendly energy landscape.

1.2 Statement of the Problem:

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) have emerged as essential components in modern energy systems,
contributing to grid stability, renewable energy integration, and peak load management. Efficient thermal management of BESS
is crucial to ensure optimal performance, mitigate safety risks, and extend the system's lifespan. With various thermal
management systems available, including active liquid cooling, passive cooling, and hybrid systems, the need arises for a
comprehensive comparative review that evaluates their effectiveness and suitability within the context of Battery Energy Storage
Systems. This study addresses this research gap by conducting a systematic analysis and comparison of different thermal
management systems for BESS in VPPs.

1
1.3 Justification of the Study:

The effective management of thermal conditions within BESS holds significant implications for energy storage
operation, safety, and overall system reliability. As the energy landscape continues to evolve towards sustainability,
understanding the advantages and limitations of various thermal management strategies is critical for optimizing BESS
performance and contributing to the seamless integration of energy storage technologies. By providing insights into the strengths
and weaknesses of different thermal management systems, this study aims to guide energy planners, researchers, and industry
stakeholders in making informed decisions for the design, operation, and maintenance of BESS in VPPs.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:

2.1 Cooling for a Static BESS

Cooling system is required for lithium-ion batteries used in battery energy storage systems (BESS) because they
generate heat during charging and discharging cycles [1]. This heat can affect the performance, safety, and lifespan of the
batteries if not properly dissipated. Cooling system can help maintain the optimal temperature range for the batteries and prevent
thermal runaway, which is a dangerous condition where the battery temperature rises uncontrollably and leads to fire or
explosion. Cooling system can also improve the efficiency and capacity of the batteries by reducing the internal resistance and
enhancing the electrochemical reactions. There are different types of cooling systems for lithium-ion batteries, such as air
cooling, liquid cooling, phase change material cooling, etc. Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost,
complexity, reliability, and effectiveness.

2.2 Classifications and Characteristics of Thermal Management Systems

Table 1.
Classifications and characteristics of thermal management systems

Thermal Management Classification Characteristics References

System
Natural convection Passive  Utilizes natural airflow for heat dissipation. [2]
Air forced convection Active  Requires fans or blowers for airflow. [3][4]
Liquid passive cooling Passive  Uses a passive fluid circulation system. [5]
Liquid active cooling Active  Utilizes pumps and an active cooling loop for [6]
heat transfer.
Heat Pipes Passive  Passive heat transfer using heat pipes. [7]
Phase Change Material Passive  PCM absorbs and releases heat during phase [8]
(PCM) transitions.
Thermoelectric cooling Active  Uses thermoelectric materials to create a [9]
temperature gradient.
Hybrid cooling Combination  Combines multiple cooling methods for [10][11]
optimized performance.

Natural convection falls into the category of passive cooling methods. It relies on the principle of heat rising and cooler
air sinking creating a natural flow without the need for mechanical components [12]. It is considered safe due to its passive
design, reducing the risk of component failures or leaks. It has a minimal environmental impact as it operates without electricity
consumption. However, it may struggle with extreme temperature conditions, potentially impacting safety and performance.

Air forced convection is an active cooling method that involves the use of fans or blowers to enhance heat dissipation
[13]. This method may require additional safety measures due to the presence of mechanical components, including fans which
can pose risks if not correctly maintained. Proper safety protocols and maintenance are essential furthermore, it consumes
electricity.

Liquid passive cooling belongs to the passive cooling category the passive cooling strategy depends on the radiator as a
heat sink. The electric pump circulates the coolant within a closed system. Heat is absorbed from the units via the circulating
liquid and then released by the radiator to the ambient.[14]. It is generally safe as it relies on passive fluid movement, reducing
the risk of component failures. Proper fluid maintenance is essential to prevent leaks and ensure safety. Liquid passive cooling is
environmentally friendly, with low energy consumption. The choice of cooling fluids can influence its overall environmental
impact.

2
 Liquid active cooling is an active cooling method that uses two loops, the primary and secondary loops. The primary
loop resembles that of the passive fluid system, which uses a pump to circulate the heat. Cooling systems, passive air, active air,
passive liquid and active liquid. The secondary loop represents the air conditioning loop. Instead of the cooler, the upper heat
exchanger works as an evaporator for the cooling process and provides the link between the primary and the secondary loops
[14]. Risks include fluid leaks and pump failures, emphasizing the importance of proper maintenance. The choice of cooling
fluids can impact its environmental impact, with eco-friendly options aligning with environmental regulations. It consumes
electricity, contributing to its environmental footprint.

Heat pipes are a passive cooling method which is a heat-transfer device that uses phase transition to transfer heat
between two solid interfaces [7]. They are generally safe and have minimal environmental impact due to their passive operation
and are sealed systems, reducing the risk of fluid leaks. Heat pipes are energy-efficient and can maintain stable temperatures,
enhancing safety and reducing environmental footprint.

PCMs fall into the passive cooling category and they use materials that can release or absorb an amount of thermal
energy at phase change, i.e., thawing, and freezing processes, to allow a kind of heating or cooling [14]. They are safe and
environmentally friendly as they operate passively without mechanical components and they have low energy consumption and
are stable under various conditions. However, their effectiveness may be reduced in high-temperature environments, which can
impact safety and performance.

Thermoelectric cooling is an advanced active heat pump that utilizes the Peltier effect for refrigeration. With its
excellent scalability and high reliability, it is an ideal solution for cooling electronic components, including batteries. Compared
with traditional cooling methods, it has the advantages of precise temperature control, noiseless, pollution-free, and easy
arrangement [9]. Proper safety measures are crucial for thermoelectric cooling, including safe handling of thermoelectric
materials and appropriate heat sink design to prevent overheating. It has higher energy consumption compared to passive
methods, contributing to a larger environmental footprint. Safety measures such as thermal insulation, are essential to prevent
accidents.

Hybrid cooling systems combine various cooling methods, both passive and active, to optimize heat dissipation [10].
Safety and environmental impact of hybrid systems depend on the specific combination of methods used. Proper safety protocols
and fluid choices are essential for their safe operation. The environmental impact varies based on the efficiency of the hybrid
configuration and the choice of cooling fluids and materials.

2.2. Performance Metrics and Evaluation

These performance metrics collectively provide a comprehensive view of how well a BESS functions and whether it
meets the intended goals of its application. Evaluating these metrics helps stakeholders make informed decisions about BESS
implementation, operation and investment.

2.2.1 Heat Dissipation Efficiency

Heat dissipation efficiency is a measure of how well a cooling system removes excess heat from battery cells. It can be
measured by comparing the temperature of the battery cells and the cooling medium, by calculating the rate of heat transfer, or by
using thermal imaging to detect hotspots. Temperature measurements, rate of heat transfer, thermal resistance values and thermal
imaging results are the quantifiable factors.

2.2.2 Cost-effectiveness

This is an aspect of expenses involved in deploying a particular method of TMS. It covers cost different types of
materials required and with respect to where they are sourced, the technology used, additional devices and equipment
maintenance and servicing, electricity consumption, security, safety and environmental mitigations, waste management among
others. These costs can be determined from real time or on approximation basis.

2.2.3 Response to Dynamic Loads

Response to dynamic loads is a measure of how well a BESS can change its power output quickly and accurately to
match changes in demand or supply on the grid. It can be measured by using ramp rate, frequency deviation, and voltage
regulation.

2.2.4 Safety and Environmental Impact

.
It involves implementing several measures to prevent thermal runaway fires, explosions, exposure to dangerous
corrosive fluids and gases that can arise from battery operation as well as accident scenarios. It also goes further into considering

3
the steps to be taken to safeguard the environment from potential pollution that can later happen in the event of accident or from
resultant discharges such as gases and waste products. The degree of safety and environmental impact would be determined by
the definition of the composition of the materials used.

2.3 Case Studies and Real-world Applications

2.3.1 Natural convection system

According to Y.Lin et.al. [15], the initial design fails to meet the ideal operating conditions for the batteries. The
uneven distribution of airflow, resulting from air-flow bypass within the gaps between the batteries, results in imbalanced cooling
performance at different height levels.

2.3.2 Air forced convection

According to Kausthubharam A. et.al.[16], the incorporation of forced air-cooling in the battery pack significantly
decreased the maximum temperature but concurrently raised the temperature differential when compared to the battery pack
without forced convection. Shifting the boundaries for air inlet and outlet to a central position enhanced the evenness of
temperature distribution within the battery pack. However, it's important to note that increasing the inlet airflow velocity, while
reducing the maximum temperature, also leads to a rise in temperature disparities and power usage. Furthermore, lowering the
ambient temperature decreases the peak temperature and promotes a more uniform temperature distribution within the battery
pack.

2.3.3 Liquid passive cooling system

According to Y. Guo et.al. [17], the batteries experience a maximum temperature increase of under 3°C during
discharging and under 5°C during charging processes. Additionally, the maximum temperature difference between the batteries
consistently remains below 2°C. Simulation outcomes indicate that the liquid cooling system markedly diminishes peak
temperatures and temperature disparities within the Energy Storage System (ESS). It's worth noting that the ESS's thermal
performance is notably influenced by the ambient temperature and the flow rate of the coolant in the liquid cooling system.

According to M. Akbarzadeh et.al. [18], for a specific level of power consumption, the liquid-based Battery Thermal
Management System (BTMS) achieves a lower temperature within the module and offers improved temperature uniformity. To
illustrate, at a power consumption of approximately 0.5 watts, the liquid-cooled module maintains an average temperature for the
hottest battery cell that is approximately 3 degrees Celsius cooler than the air-cooled module.

2.3.4 Liquid active cooling system

According to R. Ren et.al. [19], the augmentation in the rate of cold water flow has a minor impact on the thermal
management performance of the battery module, resulting in only a 1.4% alteration in the maximum module temperature.
Conversely, variations in the temperature of the cold water inlet have a substantial influence on the module's thermal
management performance. By reducing the cold water inlet temperature, it becomes possible to maintain the battery module's
temperature below 45 °C. However, this adjustment leads to an increase of 48.9% in the temperature difference between the
battery and module levels, and a 61.6% rise in the temperature differential between them.

According to G. Hailu et.al [20], liquid cooling systems have not been widely applied in static systems like BESS for
VPPs despite featuring prominently in electrical vehicles (EV). Specifically, if pumped, their convective heat transfer coefficient
is greatly boosted achieving total cooling. However, they have disadvantages such as leakages, system complexities, maintenance
and costs.

2.3.5 Heat pipes

According to J. Yang et.al. [21], in a stable operational state, the flat confined loop heat pipe (FCLHP) displayed an
annular flow pattern in the condenser section and efficiently managed a substantial bubble boiling regime in the evaporator
section. This effectively addressed and prevented the occurrence of the "dry-out" phenomenon commonly observed in
conventional microchannel heat pipes.

2.3.6 PCM

According to N. Xie et.al. [22], the temperature variance of the hybrid module is kept within a safe range, decreasing
from 6.9 °C to 3.9 °C. Additionally, the maximum temperature experiences a reduction of 13.78%, decreasing from 46.0 °C to
39.8 °C during the 2C discharging phase when compared to using PCM cooling alone. The results of the optimization suggest

4
that the enhanced Battery Thermal Management System (BTMS) can increase its energy density by 11.23% to 157.8 Wh/kg, with
only minimal changes in cooling performance when compared to the original module.

2.3.7 Thermoelectric

According to H. Sait et.al. [23], utilizing triangular pin-fins induces the highest pressure differential within the channel,
resulting in a higher output temperature of the nano-fluids compared to the use of other pin-fin configurations. On the other hand,
oval pin fins lead to the lowest pressure differential and a decrease in temperature of the nano-fluids within the channel. The
implementation of triangular pin-fins is associated with the lowest temperatures observed on both the battery and the heatsink,
whereas elliptical pin-fins lead to the highest temperature (Tm) readings on both components. With an increase in the Reynolds
Number from 300 to 600, the pressure differential escalates by a factor of 4.85 and 7.67 for elliptical and triangular pin fins,
respectively.

2.3.8 Hybrid Cooling

According to H.Yang et.al. [24], the ideal hybrid cold plate configuration, weighing only half as much as the reference
cold plate, can deliver over a 50% decrease in the overall pumping power requirement while maintaining equivalent cooling
effectiveness. This means it can effectively control the average battery temperature within 40 °C, especially when cooling
batteries subject to high discharge rates.

2.4 Research and Knowledge Gaps

Thermal management is essential for maintaining optimal performance, safety and lifespan of BESS, especially in VPPs
that operate under dynamic and uncertain conditions. Four main aspects of thermal management for BESS in VPPs are
considered. First, improvement of the efficiency of passive cooling methods, such as natural convection and phase change
materials (PCMs), which offer simplicity and low maintenance but may face limitations during high-demand scenarios. Second,
examining the reliability and durability issues, such as system lifespan and leakage risks, associated with liquid-based and heat
pipe cooling systems, which have high thermal performance but also high complexity and cost. Third, exploring ways to reduce
the energy consumption of active cooling approaches, such as liquid active cooling and air forced convection, which can provide
precise temperature control but also consume significant energy. Lastly, developing robust cooling solutions that can handle
extreme temperature variations and operating conditions, which are crucial for enhancing thermal management system
performance and longevity in VPPs.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Heat Dissipation

When comparing thermal management systems for BESS in Virtual Power Plants with regard to heat dissipation,
several factors come into play. Natural convection relies on passive airflow, making it less effective for larger BESS due to
limited heat dissipation [25]. Air forced convection improves heat dissipation with the aid of fans or blowers [26], again air in
general has a less heat transfer coefficient and specific capacity therefore its efficiency is less than other mediums [27]. Liquid
passive cooling offers moderate [25] heat dissipation through natural fluid circulation, while liquid active cooling provides
efficient heat dissipation with actively circulated cooling fluids [28] due to a higher heat transfer coefficients (350 - 400 W/m2K
compared to air, 5 – 25W/m2K). Heat pipes excel in heat dissipation, boasting rapid heat transfer capabilities due to their higher
thermal conductivity in the range of 8.225 – 19.169 x 103 W/mK [28]. Phase change materials (PCMs) offer stable temperature
control with moderate heat dissipation during phase transitions. They may offer slightly varied results due to the matrix of
composition. For instance, solid - solid systems have low specific heat, liquid - gas are limited by non-negligible volume change
to the gas phase and solid - liquid are the best due to high latent heat, high energy storage density and quasi-isothermal storage
[28].Thermoelectric cooling, however, lags in heat dissipation efficiency through the Peltier effect created by thermoelectric
modules which convert electricity to thermal difference or vice versa. They do not operate alone on battery cells therefore usually
combined with other techniques [29]. Hybrid cooling varies in heat dissipation performance based on specific configurations,
allowing for optimization by combining methods. They are a combination of passive cooling techniques and/or active cooling
techniques working on principle of annihilating or minimizing weaknesses of cooling systems [29].

3.2 Cost-Effectiveness

5
 Natural convection is a cost-effective solution for smaller BESS applications. It requires minimal additional devices,
which keeps equipment costs low [30]. The simple design of natural convection systems often necessitates fewer types of
materials, potentially reducing material expenses. Energy consumption remains low since it operates without active components,
leading to lower operational costs. Furthermore, the maintenance requirements are minimal hence contributing to overall cost-
effectiveness [31]. Installation and integration are generally straightforward, further reducing installation costs. Natural
convection is particularly suitable for smaller BESS with lower heat dissipation needs.

In contrast, air forced convection offers moderate cost-effectiveness [32]and is better suited for medium to large-scale
BESS applications. However, it requires fans or blowers [30], adding to equipment costs. Specific materials for fan construction
and ducting may also impact material costs. Energy consumption is higher due to the need to power fans, resulting in increased
operational expenses. Maintenance needs, primarily related to fan upkeep and cleaning, affect long-term costs. Additionally, the
installation process involves setting up fan systems, potentially increasing installation expenses.

Liquid passive cooling strikes a balance between cost-effectiveness and efficiency, making it a favorable choice for
medium to large-scale BESS. These systems typically employ passive fluid circulation, minimizing additional equipment costs
[33]. While the selection of appropriate cooling fluids is critical, it does not necessarily lead to high material costs. Energy
consumption is low, contributing to cost-effectiveness during operation [34]. Maintenance requirements, mainly related to fluid
levels and system checks, are moderate. The installation process is generally straightforward, potentially reducing installation
costs. Liquid passive cooling is well-suited for applications where efficient heat dissipation is required but without the
complexity and higher costs of active cooling methods.

Liquid active cooling is typically chosen for larger-scale BESS installations with significant heat dissipation
requirements. However, it comes with higher initial costs [20] as it requires pumps and cooling loop components, adding to
equipment expenses. The choice of cooling fluids and heat transfer materials can influence material costs. Energy consumption is
moderate to high due to the electricity required to power pumps, impacting operational costs. Maintenance needs, including pump
and component upkeep, are moderate. Installation can be more complex than passive systems, potentially increasing installation
costs.
Heat pipes offer a cost-effective solution that is also space-efficient, making them suitable for medium to large-scale
BESS, especially when space is limited. Minimal additional devices are required, contributing to lower equipment costs.
However, heat pipes rely on specialized materials, potentially impacting material costs. Energy consumption is low, as they
operate passively, reducing operational costs. Maintenance requirements are minimal due to their passive design, enhancing
overall cost-effectiveness. Installation is generally straightforward, potentially reducing installation costs. Heat pipes are favored
for applications where space constraints and efficient heat dissipation are critical considerations.

PCMs are a cost-effective choice for small to medium-sized BESS applications. These systems typically require
minimal additional devices, potentially leading to lower equipment costs [35]. The cost of PCMs may vary depending on the
selected type, but there is potential for cost-effectiveness. PCMs operate passively, resulting in low energy consumption and
reduced operational costs. Maintenance requirements are minimal due to their passive nature, further enhancing cost-
effectiveness [35]. Installation is generally straightforward, potentially reducing installation costs. However, PCMs may have
limitations in high-temperature environments, making them most suitable for applications with moderate heat dissipation needs.

Thermoelectric cooling is generally less cost-effective compared to other methods, primarily due to high initial costs
[36]. These systems require thermoelectric modules and heat sinks, contributing to higher equipment expenses. Specialized
materials for thermoelectric modules can impact material costs. Energy consumption is high in comparison to passive methods,
leading to increased operational costs. Maintenance requirements are moderate, related to the upkeep of thermoelectric
components. Installation may be complex, potentially increasing installation costs [37]. Thermoelectric cooling finds its niche in
specialized applications where precise temperature control is crucial, despite the higher costs.

Hybrid cooling offers variable cost-effectiveness depending on the specific combination of methods chosen [38]. The
cost aspects are influenced by the materials and devices used in the hybrid configuration. Energy consumption varies with the
efficiency of the hybrid setup, affecting operational costs. Maintenance requirements are variable, depending on the components
involved in the hybrid system. Installation and integration costs depend on the complexity of the chosen hybrid combination [39].
Hybrid cooling allows for optimization of cost-effectiveness by selecting the right combination of methods to meet the unique
requirements of the BESS.

3.3 Response to Dynamic Loads

Natural convection while cost-effective and suitable for smaller BESS, may struggle with rapid changes in load due to
its passive nature. It relies on natural airflow, which may not respond quickly to sudden shifts in heat generation or cooling
requirements. This can lead to temperature fluctuations and reduced efficiency during dynamic load scenarios.

6
 Air forced convection on the other hand, offers better responsiveness to dynamic loads. The inclusion of fans or
blowers allows for more rapid heat dissipation adjustments. This makes it well-suited for medium to large-scale BESS in Virtual
Power Plants where load fluctuations are common. The ability to quickly adjust airflow helps maintain stable temperatures and
system performance.

Liquid passive cooling exhibits moderate responsiveness to dynamic loads. While it relies on natural fluid circulation,
it can still adapt reasonably well to gradual load changes. However, it may not respond as swiftly as forced convection methods.
This makes it suitable for applications with moderate load variability.

Liquid active cooling is highly responsive to dynamic loads. With its pump-driven cooling loop, it can quickly adjust
the flow rate to match changing heat generation levels. This precise temperature control and rapid response make it ideal for
larger BESS in Virtual Power Plants where dynamic load scenarios are frequent.

Heat pipes offer excellent responsiveness to dynamic loads. Their passive operation allows for rapid heat transfer and
dissipation, making them well-suited for both small and large-scale BESS. Heat pipes can efficiently handle fluctuations in heat
generation, helping maintain stable operating conditions.

Phase change materials (PCMs) exhibit moderate responsiveness to dynamic loads. While they can absorb and release
heat passively, the rate of heat transfer is dependent on the material properties. Pure PCM (PCM without any additives) are
ineffective in dealing with higher discharge rates due to low thermal conductivity [40].

Thermoelectric cooling despite its high initial cost, offers good responsiveness to dynamic loads. The thermoelectric
modules can adjust cooling capacity relatively quickly, making them suitable for specialized BESS applications where precise
temperature control is essential, even during dynamic load changes.

Hybrid cooling can provide variable responsiveness to dynamic loads, depending on the specific combination of
methods used. By strategically combining active and passive cooling elements, hybrid systems can be tailored to meet the
responsiveness requirements of the BESS in Virtual Power Plants. This adaptability makes them a versatile choice for various
load scenarios.

3.4 Safety and Environment

Natural convection is generally safe and environmentally friendly due to its passive nature, reducing the risk of
component failures. However, it may struggle to handle extreme temperature conditions, impacting safety and performance. Its
minimal energy consumption makes it environmentally efficient, but its limitations in controlling temperature under dynamic
loads may affect long-term stability.

Air forced convection may require additional safety measures due to the presence of fans or blowers that can pose risks
if not properly maintained. While it offers efficient cooling, it consumes electricity, contributing to environmental impact. Proper
maintenance and safety protocols are essential to mitigate risks and enhance its environmental sustainability.

Liquid passive cooling typically presents low safety risks as it relies on natural fluid circulation. It is environmentally
friendly with low energy consumption. However, ensuring proper fluid maintenance and preventing leaks is essential for
environmental safety. The choice of cooling fluids can influence its overall environmental impact.

Liquid active cooling demands proper safety measures due to the use of pumps and cooling systems. Potential risks
include fluid leaks and pump failures. The choice of cooling fluids can also impact its environmental impact; as eco-friendly
options may be chosen to align with environmental regulations. While it consumes electricity, its precise temperature control
contributes to safety and performance.

Heat pipes are generally safe and have minimal environmental impact due to their passive operation. They are sealed
systems, reducing the risk of fluid leaks. Heat pipes are energy-efficient and can maintain stable temperatures, enhancing safety
and reducing environmental footprint.

PCMs are safe and environmentally friendly, operating passively without mechanical components [35]. They have low
energy consumption and are stable under various conditions. However, their effectiveness may be reduced in high-temperature
environments, which can impact safety and performance [34].

Thermoelectric cooling systems require safe handling of thermoelectric materials and proper heat sink design to
prevent overheating. They have higher energy consumption, contributing to a larger environmental footprint. Safety measures,
such as thermal insulation, are crucial to prevent accidents.

7
 Hybrid cooling systems' safety and environmental impact depend on the specific combination of methods used. Proper
safety protocols and fluid choices are essential for their safe operation. The environmental impact varies based on the efficiency
of the hybrid configuration and the choice of cooling fluids and materials.

4. DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of a comparative analysis of heat dissipation performance. The study found that
different thermal management systems have unique advantages and limitations in terms of heat dissipation. Natural convection is
cost-effective but struggles to manage heat effectively for larger BESS due to its passive nature. Air forced convection offers
moderate performance, particularly for medium to large-scale applications, providing better heat dissipation than natural
convection. Liquid passive cooling balances cost-effectiveness and efficiency, while liquid active cooling is highly efficient for
large-scale BESS. Heat pipes excel in rapid heat transfer. Phase change materials (PCMs) and thermoelectric cooling have their
niches, with PCMs being cost-effective for small to medium-sized applications, and thermoelectric cooling suitable for
specialized cases. Hybrid systems offer versatility in optimizing heat dissipation performance.

Table 2.
Heat Dissipation, advantages and drawbacks of different thermal management systems
Heat
Thermal
Dissipation Advantages Disadvantages References
Management System
Efficiency
Limited cooling capacity, large
Simple, no moving parts, no temperature gradient, sensitive
Natural convection Low [41]
noise, low cost to orientation and ambient
conditions
High noise, high power
Easy to implement, flexible,
Air forced convection Medium consumption, dust accumulation, [41]
low maintenance
limited heat transfer coefficient
High heat transfer
Complex design, high cost,
coefficient, uniform
Liquid passive cooling Medium-high leakage risk, corrosion risk, [41][42]
temperature distribution, low
pump failure risk
noise
High heat transfer
Complex design, high cost,
coefficient, uniform
Liquid active cooling High leakage risk, corrosion risk, high [41][42][20]
temperature distribution, low
power consumption
noise, high cooling capacity
Complex design, high cost,
High thermal conductivity,
limited operating temperature
Heat pipes High passive operation, flexible [41][43]
range, performance degradation
orientation, low weight
over time
High latent heat storage
Complex design, high cost, low
capacity, passive operation,
Phase change material High thermal conductivity, limited [41][43]
uniform temperature
operating temperature range
distribution
Solid-state operation, no Low efficiency, high cost, high
Thermoelectric
Medium-low moving parts, no noise, power consumption, limited [41]
cooling
precise temperature control cooling capacity
Combination of different Complex design, high cost,
Hybrid cooling High methods to achieve optimal increased system weight and [41]
performance and reliability volume

The cost-effectiveness analysis highlights the importance of tailoring the choice of a thermal management system to the
scale and specific needs of the BESS. For smaller applications, natural convection is cost-effective, but it struggles with larger
heat dissipation requirements. Air forced convection is a moderate option suitable for medium to large-scale systems; however, it
involves additional equipment and operational costs. Liquid passive cooling strikes a balance between cost-effectiveness and
efficiency, making it a favorable choice for medium to large-scale BESS. Liquid active cooling, although efficient, comes with
higher initial and operational expenses. Heat pipes are a cost-effective and space-efficient solution, ideal for medium to large-
scale BESS. PCMs are cost-effective for small to medium-sized applications, while thermoelectric cooling is less cost-effective
due to its higher initial and operational costs. Hybrid cooling's cost-effectiveness varies based on the specific combination of
methods chosen.

Table 3.
Cost-effectiveness of different thermal management systems[44]

8
 Thermal Cost-Effectiveness Overview References
Management
System
Natural Generally cost-effective for small-scale applications with low power requirements due to [30]
convection minimal equipment and operating costs. However, may struggle to dissipate heat
efficiently in larger systems.
Air forced Moderately cost-effective, suitable for medium to large-scale applications. Requires fans [30]
convection or blowers, which add initial and operating costs but provide better heat dissipation
compared to natural convection.
Air forced Moderately cost-effective, suitable for medium to large-scale applications. Requires fans [45]
convection or blowers, which add initial and operating costs but provide better heat dissipation
compared to natural convection.
Liquid passive Generally cost-effective for medium to large-scale systems. Relies on natural circulation [45][33][34]
cooling of a cooling fluid to remove heat. Initial costs for fluid and piping can be higher, but it
can be efficient in the long run.
Liquid active Typically, cost-effective for larger-scale BESS. Requires pumps and a cooling loop,
cooling which can increase initial costs. Offers precise temperature control and efficient heat
removal.
Heat pipes Moderately cost-effective and space-efficient for medium to large-scale BESS. Provide
excellent heat transfer and can be a good solution when space is limited. Initial costs are
relatively higher.
PCM Cost-effective for small to medium-sized BESS. PCM absorbs and releases heat during
phase transitions, maintaining stable temperatures. However, may have limitations in
high-temperature environments.
Thermoelectric Typically, not the most cost-effective option due to high initial costs and lower efficiency [37][36]
cooling compared to other methods. Suitable for specialized applications where precise
temperature control is crucial.
Hybrid cooling Cost-effectiveness varies based on the specific hybrid configuration. Combining methods [39][38]
like liquid cooling with heat pipes or PCM can optimize performance and cost.

The response to dynamic loads analysis emphasizes the importance of selecting the appropriate thermal management
system to match the application's load variability. Natural convection may not respond rapidly to sudden load changes, leading to
temperature fluctuations. Air forced convection is well-suited for medium to large-scale BESS with frequent load fluctuations.
Liquid passive cooling exhibits moderate responsiveness to gradual load changes. Liquid active cooling is highly responsive to
dynamic loads. Heat pipes excel in adapting to fluctuations in heat generation. PCMs have moderate responsiveness, and
thermoelectric cooling offers good responsiveness, especially in specialized applications. Hybrid cooling can provide variable
responsiveness depending on the chosen combination of methods.

Table 4.
Response to dynamic load of different thermal management systems
Thermal Response to Dynamic Load References
Management
System
Natural convection Limited response to dynamic loads. May struggle to adapt to rapid changes in heat [46][47]
generation and may lead to temperature fluctuations. [31]

Air forced Better response to dynamic loads compared to natural convection. Fans or blowers can [46][31]
convection adjust airflow to dissipate heat more effectively.
Liquid passive Moderate response to dynamic loads. Relies on the natural circulation of a cooling [48][49][31]
cooling fluid, which can provide some thermal inertia but may not respond rapidly to load
changes.
Liquid active Good response to dynamic loads. Pumps and a cooling loop allow for rapid [48][49][31]
cooling adjustments in heat removal, providing better temperature control during load
fluctuations.
Heat pipes Good response to dynamic loads. Heat pipes can quickly transfer heat and respond to [46]
load changes, offering stable temperatures.
PCM Moderate response to dynamic loads. PCMs provide thermal inertia but may not [48][40]
respond rapidly to load changes. Suitable for applications with moderate load
variations.

9
 Thermoelectric Limited response to dynamic loads. Thermoelectric cooling is typically slower to adapt [47]
cooling to load changes, making it less suitable for applications with rapid load fluctuations.
Hybrid Cooling Response varies based on the specific hybrid configuration. Combining methods can [50][38]
optimize dynamic load response. For example, combining liquid cooling with heat
pipes can provide rapid response and stability.

The safety and environmental assessment reveals that while natural convection is generally safe and environmentally
friendly, it may struggle with extreme temperature conditions. Air forced convection may require additional safety measures and
has an environmental impact due to electricity consumption. Liquid passive cooling is generally safe and environmentally
friendly but needs proper fluid maintenance. Liquid active cooling requires safety measures and can have an environmental
impact, depending on fluid choice. Heat pipes are safe and environmentally friendly. PCMs are safe and eco-friendly but may be
limited in high-temperature environments. Thermoelectric cooling requires safety measures and has higher energy consumption.
Hybrid cooling's safety and environmental impact depend on the specific combination of methods used.

Table 5.
Safety and environmental impact of different thermal management systems
Thermal Safety Environmental Impact References
Management System
Natural convection Generally safe as it has no mechanical Minimal environmental impact, as it [31]
components, reducing the risk of equipment uses natural airflow. May lead to
failure. slightly higher operating
temperatures.
Air forced convection Safe with proper design and maintenance, Moderate environmental impact. [31]
but fans or blowers can introduce mechanical Efficient cooling, may reduce
failure risks. overall system heat.
Liquid passive Safe with proper fluid selection and Moderate environmental impact due [31]
cooling containment. to the use of fluids. Fluid leaks or
spills can have ecological
consequences.
Liquid active cooling Safe with proper fluid handling and Moderate environmental impact due [31]
maintenance to fluid usage and electricity
consumption by pumps. Efficient
cooling may offset some
environmental concerns.
Heat pipes Safe with no mechanical components, Minimal environmental impact as it [51]
reducing failure risks. is a passive system with no
electricity consumption.
PCM Safe with proper PCM containment.. Moderate environmental impact due [52][34][35]
to the energy required for PCM
production and disposal at end-of-
life
Thermoelectric Safe but may have limited use due to high Moderate environmental impact due [53]
cooling initial costs. to electricity consumption and the
use of thermoelectric materials.
Hybrid cooling Depends on the specific hybrid Depends on the specific hybrid [54]
configuration. Combining methods can configuration. Combining methods
optimize safety and reduce environmental can optimize safety and reduce
impact. environmental impact.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary of Findings

In conclusion, the research findings emphasize the importance of carefully selecting the appropriate thermal
management system for Battery Energy Storage Systems in Virtual Power Plants. Different systems have strengths and
weaknesses, and the choice should align with the specific requirements of the application.

5.2 Implications and Practical Recommendations

10
 The research underscores the need to consider factors such as heat dissipation, cost-effectiveness, responsiveness to
dynamic loads, safety, and environmental impact when selecting a thermal management system. Based on the findings, practical
recommendations are as follows:
 For smaller BESS with limited heat dissipation needs, natural convection or PCMs are cost-effective options.
 Medium to large-scale BESS applications with variable load scenarios benefit from air forced convection, liquid active
cooling, or heat pipes, depending on the specific requirements.
 Specialized applications that demand precise temperature control can consider thermoelectric cooling.
 Hybrid cooling systems are a versatile choice, allowing customization to meet unique BESS requirements.

5.3 Future Research Directions

Future research can explore innovations in materials and technologies to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of
thermal management systems. Additionally, investigating the integration of renewable energy sources for cooling processes can
further reduce the environmental footprint of BESS.

5.4 Final Remarks

In closing, this research provides valuable insights into the selection of thermal management systems for BESS. By
considering the specific needs and challenges of each application, energy storage projects can optimize performance, reduce
operational costs, and minimize their environmental impact. The decision should be driven by a comprehensive understanding of
the trade-offs between different thermal management systems and their alignment with project goals.

REFERENCES:

[1] M. A. Hannan et al., “The value of thermal management control strategies for battery energy storage in grid
decarbonization: Issues and recommendations,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 276, p. 124223, 2020.
[2] S. Hong, X. Zhang, K. Chen, and S. Wang, “Design of flow configuration for parallel air-cooled battery thermal
management system with secondary vent,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 116, pp. 1204–1212, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.09.092.
[3] L. Zhao, W. Li, G. Wang, W. Cheng, and M. Chen, “A novel thermal management system for lithium-ion battery
modules combining direct liquid-cooling with forced air-cooling,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 232, no. May, p. 120992,
2023, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120992.
[4] L. K. Singh, G. Mishra, A. K. Sharma, and A. K. Gupta, “A numerical study on thermal management of a lithium-ion
battery module via forced-convective air cooling,” Int. J. Refrig., vol. 131, no. February, pp. 218–234, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2021.07.031.
[5] L. K. Singh, R. Kumar, and A. K. Gupta, “A novel strategy of enhanced thermal performance in air cooled lithium-ion
battery by wavy walls,” Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog., vol. 43, no. September 2022, p. 101964, 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.tsep.2023.101964.
[6] J. Xu, Z. Guo, Z. Xu, X. Zhou, and X. Mei, “A systematic review and comparison of liquid-based cooling system for
lithium-ion batteries,” eTransportation, vol. 17, no. March, p. 100242, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.etran.2023.100242.
[7] A. M. Fathoni, N. Putra, and T. M. I. Mahlia, “A systematic review of battery thermal management systems based on
heat pipes,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 73, no. PC, p. 109081, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2023.109081.
[8] I. K. Lokhande and N. Tiwari, “Enhancing lithium-ion battery cooling efficiency using composite phase change material
packed mini-chambers: A numerical study,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 72, no. PE, p. 108749, 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.est.2023.108749.
[9] X. Liu, L. cheng Yao, C. qi Su, X. Xiong, and Y. P. Wang, “A hybrid battery thermal management system coupling with
PCM and optimized thermoelectric cooling for high-rate discharge condition,” Case Stud. Therm. Eng., vol. 49, no. July,
p. 103269, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2023.103269.
[10] S. Hu, S. Wang, C. Ma, S. Li, X. Liu, and Y. Zhang, “A hybrid cooling method with low energy consumption for
lithium-ion battery under extreme conditions,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 266, no. March, p. 115831, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115831.
[11] Y. Wei and M. Agelin-Chaab, “Experimental investigation of a novel hybrid cooling method for lithium-ion batteries,”
Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 136, no. March, pp. 375–387, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.03.024.
[12] M. Sharaf, M. S. Yousef, and A. S. Huzayyin, “Review of cooling techniques used to enhance the efficiency of
photovoltaic power systems,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 29, no. 18, pp. 26131–26159, 2022.
[13] X. Ye, Y. Zhao, and Z. Quan, “Experimental study on heat dissipation for lithium-ion battery based on micro heat pipe
array (MHPA),” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 130, pp. 74–82, 2018.
[14] M. M. Hamed, A. El-Tayeb, I. Moukhtar, A. Z. El Dein, and E. H. Abdelhameed, “A review on recent key technologies
of lithium-ion battery thermal management: External cooling systems,” Results Eng., vol. 16, no. July, p. 100703, 2022,
doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100703.

11
[15] Y. Lin, Y. W. Chen, and J. T. Yang, “Optimized thermal management of a battery energy-storage system (BESS)
inspired by air-cooling inefficiency factor of data centers,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 200, no. 1, p. 123388, 2023,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2022.123388.
[16] Kausthubharam, P. K. Koorata, and N. Chandrasekaran, “Numerical investigation of cooling performance of a novel air-
cooled thermal management system for cylindrical Li-ion battery module,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 193, Jul. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.116961.
[17] Y. Guo et al., “Modeling and analysis of liquid-cooling thermal management of an in-house developed 100 kW/500
kWh energy storage container consisting of lithium-ion batteries retired from electric vehicles,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol.
232, no. May, p. 121111, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.121111.
[18] M. Akbarzadeh et al., “A comparative study between air cooling and liquid cooling thermal management systems for a
high-energy lithium-ion battery module,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 198, no. August, p. 117503, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117503.
[19] R. Ren, Y. Zhao, Y. Diao, and L. Liang, “Experimental study on the bottom liquid cooling thermal management system
for lithium-ion battery based on multichannel flat tube,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 219, no. PC, p. 119636, 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.119636.
[20] G. Hailu, M. Henke, and T. Petersen, “Stationary Battery Thermal Management: Analysis of Active Cooling Designs,”
Batteries, vol. 8, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.3390/batteries8030023.
[21] J. Yang et al., “Numerical study on side cooling technology of battery with a flat confined loop heat pipe,” Appl. Therm.
Eng., vol. 236, no. PA, p. 121490, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.121490.
[22] N. Xie, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, R. Luo, Y. Liu, and C. Ma, “Thermal performance and structural optimization of a hybrid
thermal management system based on MHPA/PCM/liquid cooling for lithium-ion battery,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 235,
no. April, p. 121341, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.121341.
[23] H. Sait, “Cooling a plate lithium-ion battery using a thermoelectric system and evaluating the geometrical impact on the
performance of heatsink connected to the system,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 52, no. PA, p. 104692, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.est.2022.104692.
[24] H. Yang, M. Li, Z. Wang, and B. Ma, “A compact and lightweight hybrid liquid cooling system coupling with Z-type
cold plates and PCM composite for battery thermal management,” Energy, vol. 263, no. PE, p. 126026, 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2022.126026.
[25] N. Napa, M. K. Agrawal, and B. Tamma, “Design of novel thermal management system for Li-ion battery module using
metal matrix based passive cooling method,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 73, no. PC, p. 109119, 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.est.2023.109119.
[26] L. Martín-Martín, J. Gastelurrutia, G. S. Larraona, R. Antón, L. del Portillo-Valdés, and I. Gil, “Optimization of thermal
management systems for vertical elevation applications powered by lithium-ion batteries,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 147,
no. October 2018, pp. 155–166, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.10.077.
[27] A. M. Hassan, A. A. Alwan, and H. K. Hamzah, “Numerical Study of Fan Coil Heat Exchanger with Copper Foam,” Int.
J. Fluid Mach. Syst., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 73–88, 2023, doi: 10.5293/ijfms.2023.16.1.073.
[28] S. Landini, J. Leworthy, and T. S. O’Donovan, “A Review of Phase Change Materials for the Thermal Management and
Isothermalisation of Lithium-Ion Cells,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 25, no. February, p. 100887, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.est.2019.100887.
[29] A. Can, F. Selimefendigil, and H. F. Öztop, “A review on soft computing and nanofluid applications for battery thermal
management,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 53, no. June, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2022.105214.
[30] F. Tao, W. Zhang, D. Guo, W. Cao, L. Sun, and F. Jiang, “Thermofluidic modeling and temperature monitoring of Li-
ion battery energy storage system,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 181, p. 116026, Nov. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116026.
[31] H. Adel and A. L. I. Ali, “Lithium-Ion Batteries Applied for,” 2020.
[32] P. Qin, J. Sun, X. Yang, and Q. Wang, “Battery thermal management system based on the forced-air convection: A
review,” eTransportation, vol. 7, p. 100097, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.etran.2020.100097.
[33] C. S. Sharma, G. Schlottig, T. Brunschwiler, M. K. Tiwari, B. Michel, and D. Poulikakos, “A novel method of energy
efficient hotspot-targeted embedded liquid cooling for electronics: An experimental study,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.,
vol. 88, pp. 684–694, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.04.047.
[34] S. Nižetić, A. M. Papadopoulos, and E. Giama, “Comprehensive analysis and general economic-environmental
evaluation of cooling techniques for photovoltaic panels, Part I: Passive cooling techniques,” Energy Convers. Manag.,
vol. 149, pp. 334–354, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.022.
[35] C. Nadjahi, H. Louahlia, and S. Lemasson, “A review of thermal management and innovative cooling strategies for data
center,” Sustain. Comput. Informatics Syst., vol. 19, no. October 2017, pp. 14–28, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.suscom.2018.05.002.
[36] O. Owoyele, S. Ferguson, and B. T. O’Connor, “Performance analysis of a thermoelectric cooler with a corrugated
architecture,” Appl. Energy, vol. 147, pp. 184–191, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.132.
[37] M. M. A. Elmaaref, A. A. Askalany, M. Salem, and K. Harby, “Solar thermoelectric cooling technology,” Proc. 3rd Int.
Conf. Energy Eng., no. December 2017, pp. 1–7, 2015.
[38] Y. Jing, Z. Li, H. Chen, S. Lu, and S. Lv, “Exergoeconomic design criterion of solar absorption-subcooled compression
hybrid cooling system based on the variable working conditions,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 180, no. November

12
 2018, pp. 889–903, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.11.004.
[39] Z. Peng, Z. Li, J. Zeng, J. Yu, and S. Lv, “Thermo-economic analysis of absorption-compression hybrid cooling systems
with parallel subcooling and recooling for small scale low-grade heat source and low temperature application,” Int. J.
Refrig., vol. 138, no. December 2021, pp. 220–232, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.03.003.
[40] A. R. Bais, D. G. Subhedhar, N. C. Joshi, and S. Panchal, “Numerical investigation on thermal management system for
lithium ion battery using phase change material,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 66, pp. 1726–1733, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2022.05.269.
[41] J. Wüllner, N. Reiners, L. Millet, M. Salibi, F. Stortz, and M. Vetter, “Review of Stationary Energy Storage Systems
Applications, Their Placement, and Techno-Economic Potential,” Curr. Sustain. Energy Reports, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 263–
273, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40518-021-00188-2.
[42] D. Kaczorowska et al., “A case study on battery energy storage system in a virtual power plant: defining charging and
discharging characteristics,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 24, 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13246670.
[43] A. Ahmadian, K. Ponnambalam, A. Almansoori, and A. Elkamel, “Optimal Management of a Virtual Power Plant
Consisting of Renewable Energy Resources and Electric Vehicles Using Mixed-Integer Linear Programming and Deep
Learning,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16021000.
[44] A. H. Alami et al., “Potential applications of phase change materials for batteries’ thermal management systems in
electric vehicles,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 54, p. 105204, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2022.105204.
[45] S. Cai and Y. Li, “Incentive Policy for Battery Energy Storage Systems Based on Economic Evaluation Considering
Flexibility and Reliability Benefits,” Front. Energy Res., vol. 9, no. March, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi:
10.3389/fenrg.2021.634912.
[46] H. Behi et al., “Novel thermal management methods to improve the performance of the Li-ion batteries in high
discharge current applications,” Energy, vol. 224, p. 120165, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120165.
[47] X. Li et al., “Experimental Investigation on a Thermoelectric Cooler for Thermal Management of a Lithium-Ion Battery
Module,” Int. J. Photoenergy, vol. 2019, 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/3725364.
[48] Q. Xin, J. Xiao, T. Yang, H. Zhang, and X. Long, “Thermal management of lithium-ion batteries under high ambient
temperature and rapid discharging using composite PCM and liquid cooling,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 210, no. March, p.
118230, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118230.
[49] K. Xu, H. Zhang, J. Zhu, and G. Qiu, “Thermal Management for Battery Module with Liquid-Cooled Shell Structure
under High Charge/Discharge Rates and Thermal Runaway Conditions,” Batteries, vol. 9, no. 4, 2023, doi:
10.3390/batteries9040204.
[50] S. Hekmat and G. R. Molaeimanesh, “Hybrid thermal management of a Li-ion battery module with phase change
material and cooling water pipes : An experimental investigation,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 166, no. October 2019, p.
114759, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114759.
[51] Y. Ning, R. Tao, J. Luo, and Q. Hu, “Application and Research Progress of Heat Pipe in Thermal Management of
Lithium-Ion Battery,” Trends Renew. Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 130–144, 2022, doi: 10.17737/tre.2022.8.2.00145.
[52] A. Wazeer, A. Das, C. Abeykoon, A. Sinha, and A. Karmakar, “Phase change materials for battery thermal management
of electric and hybrid vehicles: A review,” Energy Nexus, vol. 7, no. August, p. 100131, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100131.
[53] R. M. Atta, “Thermoelectric cooling (Chpater 12),” pp. 247–267, 2018.
[54] M. A. Abdelkareem et al., “Battery thermal management systems based on nanofluids for electric vehicles,” J. Energy
Storage, vol. 50, no. March, p. 104385, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2022.104385.

13
14