Capital cost expenditure of high temperature latent and sensible thermal energy

storage systems
Rhys Jacob, Wasim Saman, and Frank Bruno

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080012 (2017);

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4984433
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1850/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Demonstration of EnergyNest thermal energy storage (TES) technology
AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080011 (2017); 10.1063/1.4984432

Developing a cost effective rock bed thermal energy storage system: Design and modelling
AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080015 (2017); 10.1063/1.4984436

Parametric analysis of a packed bed thermal energy storage system

AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080021 (2017); 10.1063/1.4984442

Operating results of a thermocline thermal energy storage included in a parabolic trough mini power plant
AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080010 (2017); 10.1063/1.4984431

First operational results of a high temperature energy storage with packed bed and integration potential in CSP
plants
AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080024 (2017); 10.1063/1.4984445

Rock-bed thermocline storage: A numerical analysis of granular bed behavior and interaction with storage tank
AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 080023 (2017); 10.1063/1.4984444
Capital Cost Expenditure of High Temperature Latent and
Sensible Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Rhys Jacob1a), Wasim Saman1, Frank Bruno1
1
Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia
a)
Corresponding author: rhys.jacob@mymail.unisa.edu.au

Abstract. In the following study cost estimates have been undertaken for an encapsulated phase change material (EPCM)
packed bed, a packed bed thermocline and a traditional two-tank molten salt system. The effect of various heat transfer
fluids (air and molten salt), system configuration (cascade vs one PCM, and direct vs indirect) and temperature difference
(ΔT = 100-500 °C) on the cost estimate of the system was also investigated. Lastly, the storage system boundary was
expanded to include heat exchangers, pumps and fans, and heat tracing so that a thorough cost comparison could be
undertaken. The results presented in this paper provide a methodology to quickly compare various systems and
configurations while providing design limits for the studied technologies.

NOMENCLATURE

Abbreviation Definition Units Abbreviation Definition Units

US United States - ASTRI Australian Solar -
Thermal Research
Initiative
CAPEX Capital Expenditure $US TESS Thermal Energy -
Storage System
TES Thermal Energy - CSP Concentrated Solar -
Storage Power
EPCM Encapsulated Phase - HTF Heat Transfer Fluid -
Change Material
PCM Phase Change - MS Molten Salt -
Material
HEX Heat Exchanger - D Direct System -
ID Indirect System - S Steam -
A Air - CEPCI Chemical -
Engineering Plant
Cost Index
Symbol Definition Units Symbol Definition Units
Qc Energy Stored in kJ/cap QHTF Energy Stored in kJ
Capsules HTF
ΔT Temperature °C Vc Volume Occupied by m3
Difference Capsules
VT Tank Volume m3 ht Tank Height m
rt Tank Radius m MHTF Mass of HTF kg
CB Cost of Studied $US CA Cost of Reference $US
System System

SolarPACES 2016
AIP Conf. Proc. 1850, 080012-1–080012-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4984433
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1522-5/$30.00

080012-1
 SB Size of Studied MWht SA Size of Reference MWht
System System
CE Cost of Encapsulation $US/kg CS Cost of Shell Material $US/kg
MS Mass of Shell kg rc Radius of EPCM m
Material capsule
CPRO Cost of Processing $US/kg MPCM Mass of PCM kg

INTRODUCTION
The following paper describes a methodology to determine the capital cost expenditure (CAPEX) of high
temperature thermal energy storage systems (TESS). For the uptake of any new technology it must prove that it is
reliable and that it has a lower overall cost/higher efficiency than the alternative. In the field of renewable energy a
major issue for mass uptake is the inability to supply continuous energy or energy on demand. For concentrated
solar power (CSP) in particular one method that could solve this problem is thermal energy storage (TES). TESS can
store energy as heat during periods of high production to be redistributed during times of high demand. This can be
done in several ways; namely sensible, latent and thermochemical heat storage. Traditional and current CSP plants
have employed sensible heat systems to store their excess energy. In this scenario a media (solid or liquid) may store
energy by raising its temperature in line with its heat capacity. Currently molten salt two-tank systems are employed,
however these systems are limited by operational temperatures (< 600 °C) and high costs (> $35/kWht). In an effort
to reduce costs in line with government initiatives such as the SunShot initiative in the US or the Australian Solar
Thermal Research Initiative (ASTRI) in Australia, CSP operators are investigating the use of higher temperatures
through the system. This will require materials and storage systems that are capable of operating at over 600 °C at a
cost below $25/kWht. As current molten salt technology is unable to meet this criteria, two other options have been
investigated here: a packed bed of rocks and a packed bed of encapsulated phase change material (EPCM). Both of
these options have the potential to replace the current two-tank molten salt systems and provide low-cost future
storage options. The methodology used in the current paper is based on previous literature from [1, 2, 13] and
previous reports by [3, 4] on the CAPEX of real systems. The results are presented for a range of temperatures and
scenarios so that a thorough comparison of the systems can be made.

METHODOLOGY
CAPEX estimations were performed for the traditional two-tank molten salt system, cascaded EPCM systems
with molten salt and air as heat transfer fluids (HTFs), and a packed bed thermocline system utilising rocks or a
geopolymer as the filler with molten salt and air as HTFs. The system boundary for direct and indirect systems is
shown in FIGURE 1. In the current study the whole system CAPEX is compared rather than the TES exclusively (as
is traditionally done) so that differences in various HTFs and system configurations can be quantitatively compared.
In each of the studied systems cost estimates will be provided for:
 Piping/Ductwork and Valves (including insulation and fittings)
 Storage Pumps/Fans
 Heat Trace Systems (if required)
 Additional Heat Exchangers
Cost data has been gathered from various sources and are presented for a reference size of 1,000 MWht. For
comparison of required sizes, readers are suggested to use EQUATION 1 [5].
.
[1]
In EQUATION 1 CX and SX relate to the cost and size of the reference, while CY and SY relate to the cost and
size of the planned equipment. This equation is very useful for estimates where an accuracy of ±20 % is required.

Encapsulation Cost Estimate

To calculate the cost of encapsulation, the work produced by [1-2] has been expanded. Using EQUATION 2,
allowances can now be made for various shell materials, allowing a more thorough comparison of systems to be

080012-2
 Solar Solar
Field + Field +
Tower TES Tower TES

FIGURE 1. System Schematic

A) Direct System; B) Indirect System
undertaken. The assumption of EQUATION 2 is that the studied phase change material (PCM) can be encapsulated
using the fluidised spray method.
.
∗ ∗ ∗ [2]
.
In the above equation CPRO has a value of $0.35/kg.

Heat Exchanger Design and Costing

Commercial scale molten salt-to-steam exchangers are in operation around the world. Therefore, using the cost
data supplied by the System Advisor Model (SAM), the cost of this type of heat exchanger was estimated to be
$4000/MWht. Commercial data for molten salt/sodium-to-air heat exchangers was not available. As such the cost
was estimated using data from [5] to be $7,290/MWht (U=250 [6]). Lastly, the cost of an air-to-steam heat
exchanger was also estimated, and found to be $11,500/MWht using data from (U=154 [6]). This was compared to
commercial data from [7] and found to be reasonable.

Gas Ductwork and Valve Costing

To estimate the cost of the gas ductwork and valves a comparison was made between the material needed for a
liquid system and a gas system with the same specifications (1000 MWht reference, max flow through ducts 12 m/s).
Using these specifications it was found that the gas system requires 4.7 times as much material. Therefore, assuming
material is the controlling cost in the piping system, a gas ductwork system (including valves and insulation) was
estimated to be $4,720/MWht.

System Design
EPCM System Design

The design and size of the system has been calculated by EQUATIONS 3-9. The input parameters of the current
study are shown in for reference.
∗# [3]
∗ ∗ ∗∆ ∗ ∗∆ ∗ ∗ ∗∆ [4]
∗
# [5]
1 ∗ ∗∆ ∗ ∗ [6]

080012-3
 [7]
∗
2∗ [8]

Sensible System Design

The design and size of the packed bed system has been calculated by EQUATIONS 7-9, while the two-tank
system has been calculated using EQUATIONS 7-8, 10-11. The input parameters of the current study are shown in
TABLE 1 for reference.

[9]
∗ ∗∆ ∗ ∗ ∗∆ ∗

[10]
∗∆
[11]

TABLE 1. System Design Parameters

Parameter Definition EPCM System Packed Bed System Molten
Salt
System
QSC Desired Storage Capacity 1000 1000 1000
(MWht)
η Efficiency (%) 90 69 85
Vc1 Volume of 1 Capsule (m3) 6.42 x 10-6 - -
ρs Density of Shell (kg/m3) 2500 - -
cps Heat Capacity of Shell (kJ/kgK) 1.6 - -
VPCM1 Volume of PCM in 1 Capsule 4.19 x 10-6 - -
(kg/m3)
Δhf Enthalpy of Phase Change of 221 [1 PCM] - -
Filler (kJ/kg) 305 [Cascade]
cpf Heat Capacity of Filler (kJ/kgK) 0.63 [1 PCM] 0.83 [Quartz/Sand] 1.5
0.74 [Cascade] 1.6 [Geopolymer]
ρf Density of Filler (kg/m3) 2342 [1 PCM] 2500 [Quartz/Sand] 1899
2047 [Cascade] 2500 [Geopolymer]
ε Porosity 0.6 0.7 1
ρHTF Density of HTF (kg/m3) 1899 [Molten Salt] 1899 [Molten Salt] -
0.5 [Air] 0.5 [Air]
cpHTF Heat Capacity of HTF (kJ/kgK) 1.5 [Molten Salt] 1.5 [Molten Salt] -
1.07 [Air] 1.07 [Air]

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As previously mentioned costs of equipment have been gathered from various sources and are presented in
TABLE 2 for reference. It should be noted that the costs presented are from readily available sources and will be
different from quotes obtained locally. All costs have been converted to $US using relevant chemical engineering
cost price index (CEPCI) for a reference year of 2015.
TABLE 2. CAPEX Reference Data
Equipment Cost Reference
Tank Insulation $235/m2 [1-2]
Foundation $1,210/m2 [1-2]
Material $3.5/kg [SS316] [8]
$2.5/kg [SS304] [8]
$0.56/kg [CS] [9]

080012-4
 Storage Material Shell Cost $0.05/kg [Geopolymer] [10]
Encapsulation See Equation 2
Filler $0.33/kg [1 PCM] [11]
$0.30/kg [Cascade]
$0.072/kg [Quartz/rocks]
HTF $-/kg [Air] [11]
$0.49/kg [Solar Salt]
Piping/Valves Liquid Pipes and Valves $968/MWht* [11]
Gas Ductwork and Valves $4,500/MWht
Instrumentation and Control $228/MWht* [11]
Heat Trace $5,653/MWht* [12]
Pump/Fan Molten Salt Pump $1,729/MWht [12]
Gas Fan $338/MWht [5]
Heat Exchanger MS/Steam $4,000/MWht [12]
Liquid/Air $7,290/MWht [5]
Air/Steam $11,500/MWht [5,7]
* Adjusted to 1000 MWht reference plant

TES CAPEX Estimates

Using the data presented in TABLE 2, direct cost estimates of several TES systems was investigated using the
procedure outlined in [1-2, 13]. The TES system includes the cost of the tank, filler material(s) and HTF,
encapsulation (if required), instrumentation and control, and the piping (ductwork) and valves. The investigated
systems include:

 A traditional two-tank molten salt system (2-Tank or 2)

 An EPCM system utilising one PCM (1EPCM)
 A cascaded EPCM system utilising 2 PCMs (2EPCM)
 A quartz/rock thermocline system (ThermoQS)
 A thermocline system utilising a geopolymer (ThermoG)

The costs of these system were estimated over a range of temperature differences (ΔT=100-500 °C) and a variety
of HTFs (molten salt and air). The results of this are presented in FIGURE 2 and FIGURE 3.

2‐Tank 1EPCM 2EPCM ThermoQS ThermoG

$80,00

$60,00
$/kWht

$40,00

$20,00

$‐
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
ΔT (°C)

FIGURE 2. Comparison of TES Costs with Molten Salt HTF

080012-5
 $60,00
$50,00
$40,00

$/kWht
$30,00
$20,00
$10,00
$‐
100 200 300 400 500
ΔT (°C)

2EPCM ThermoQS ThermoG

FIGURE 3. Comparison of TES Costs with Air HTF

FIGURE 2 shows that all the systems investigated resulted in a lower cost than the traditional two-tank molten
salt system for all temperature differences. It can also be seen that for a ΔT of 300 °C, the EPCM systems,
thermocline system with quartz/rocks and the thermocline with a geopolymer results in 50 %, 35 % and 60 %
savings, respectively. As expected the cascaded system resulted in lower cost estimates than the one PCM system
for all temperature differences. FIGURE 3 shows a comparison between the systems with air as the HTF. Initially
the cascaded system results in a lower cost but is more expensive when ΔT > 200 °C. The thermocline system with
quartz/rocks is approximately the same price as the cascaded EPCM system when ΔT > 300 °C. For all temperature
differences the geopolymer thermocline system resulted in a lower cost than the quartz/rock system due to the higher
heat capacity of the geopolymer filler.

TESS CAPEX Estimates

As previously mentioned, the whole storage system must be accounted for in order for a fair comparison to be
made between technologies and system designs. In a preliminary attempt to achieve this, costs were estimated for
various heat exchangers, pumps/fans and heat trace systems (see TABLE 2). By assessing each design (see TABLE 3)
cost estimates were able to be produced for the full storage system. The results of this are shown in FIGURE 4 and
FIGURE 5.
TABLE 3. Storage System Equipment Requirements
MS-2-D MS-2-ID MS- MS-
EPCM-D ThermoG-D
Heat Trace 1 1 1 1
MS Pump 2 3 1 1
Gas Fan 0 0 0 0
MS/S HEX 1 2 1 1
MS/A HEX 0 0 0 0
A/S HEX 0 0 0 0
Efficiency Multiplier 1.17 1.17 1.11 1.45
Cost ($/kWht) $15.42 $22.16 $12.65 $16.50
Air- Air- Air- Air-Thermo-
EPCM- EPCM- ThermoG- ID
D ID D
Heat Trace 0 0 0 0
MS Pump 0 0 0 0
Gas Fan 1 2 1 2
MS/S HEX 0 0 0 0

080012-6
 MS/A HEX 0 1 0 1
A/S HEX 1 1 1 1
Efficiency Multiplier 1.11 1.11 1.45 1.45
Cost ($/kWht) $13.15 $21.63 $17.16 $28.21

To calculate the cost of the additional storage equipment, the cost estimate for each piece of required equipment
is multiplied by the system efficiency multiplier and converted to a uniform cost.

$120,00
$100,00
$/kWht

$80,00
$60,00
$40,00
$20,00
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
ΔT (°C)

MS‐2‐D MS‐2EPCM‐D MS‐ThermoQS‐D

MS‐ThermoG‐D Air‐2EPCM‐D Air‐ThermoG‐D
MS‐2‐ID Air‐2EPCM‐ID Air‐ThermoG‐ID

FIGURE 4. Comparison of System Costs for Air and Molten Salt HTFs

$105,00
$95,00
$85,00
$/kWht

$75,00
$65,00
$55,00
$45,00
$35,00
$25,00
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
ΔT (°C)

MS‐2‐D MS‐2‐ID Air‐2EPCM‐D Air‐2EPCM‐ID

FIGURE 5. Comparison of Direct and Indirect Systems with Air and Molten Salt HTFs

With the exception of the indirect air-based EPCM system, it can be seen that for a temperature difference of
greater than 200 °C, the cost estimate of the air-based EPCM and thermocline systems are approximately equal (see
FIGURE 4). Additionally, for a temperature difference of 200 °C it can be seen that the molten salt systems
outperform the air based systems. Also, while the EPCM systems result in a lower cost for ΔT = 200 °C when
compared to the thermocline system, for temperature differences above this the cost estimates are approximately the
same. For a temperature difference of 250 °C the direct two-tank molten salt system results in a lower cost estimate
than the indirect air-based thermocline system. With a temperature difference of 300 °C the indirect two-tank system

080012-7
results in a lower cost estimate than the indirect air-based thermocline system while the direct two-tank system is
more cost effective than the indirect air-based EPCM system. The air-based EPCM system results in a lower cost
than all two-tank molten salt systems.

CONCLUSIONS
Cost estimates were produced for several high temperature systems. The studied systems included a two-tank
molten system, an EPCM system and a thermocline system. Initially the cost of the tank, storage material and piping
was determined. This cost was then expanded to include additional equipment such as heat exchangers, pumps and
heat tracing so that a more appropriate system cost comparison could be made. The major conclusions of this study
are listed below:
 Cascaded EPCM systems resulted in a lower cost estimate for all temperature differences.
 The thermocline system utilising a geopolymer as the filler material resulted in a lower cost estimate than a
similar system utilising quartz/rocks as the filler material for all temperature differences.
 The EPCM system has a lower TES cost than the thermocline system with the geopolymer for a temperature
difference less than 200 °C for both molten salt and air heat transfer fluids.
 For a temperature difference of 300 °C, the EPCM system, thermocline with quartz/rock and the thermocline
with geopolymer filler result in a TES cost saving of 50 %, 35 % and 60 % when compared to the two-tank
molten salt system.
 For a temperature difference of greater than 200 °C, the cost estimate of the air-based EPCM and
thermocline systems are approximately equal.
 For all HTFs (air and molten salt) the direct system results in a lower cost estimate than any indirect system.

REFERENCES
1. Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Cost and performance analysis of concentrating solar power systems with
integrated latent thermal energy storage. Energy (2014); 64: 793-810.
2. Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Optimization of an encapsulated phase change material thermal energy
storage system. Solar Energy (2014); 107: 770–788.
3. Kelly B, Kearney D, (2006). Thermal storage commercial plant design for a 2-tank indirect molten salt system.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-550040166, pp. 1–32.
4. Herrmann U, Kelly B, Price H. Two-tank molten salt storage for parabolic trough solar power plants. Energy
(2004); 29: 883–893.
5. Peters M.S, Timmerhaus K.D (1991). Plant design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. New York,
McGraw Hill; 4th Ed.
6. Holman J.P, (2010). Heat Transfer. New York, McGraw Hill; 10th Ed.
7. Matthews I (2012). GASCO- Heat Recovery. Available at:
http://energyefficiencyassist.com.au/pdf/past_presentations/Gasco%20Melbourne.pdf [Last Accessed: 18th July
2016]
8. MEPS (2016). World Stainless Steel Prices- Cold Rolled Plate [April 2015]. Available at:
http://www.meps.co.uk/Stainless%20Prices.htm [Last accessed: 14th July 2016]
9. MEPS (2016). World Carbon Steel Prices- Hot Rolled Plate [April 2015]. Available at:
http://www.meps.co.uk/World%20Carbon%20Price.htm [Last accessed: 14th July 2016]
10. Jacob R, Trout N, Raud R, Clarke S, Steinberg T.A, Saman W, Bruno F. Geopolymer encapsulation of a
chloride salt phase change material for high temperature thermal energy storage. AIP Conference Proceedings
1734, 050021 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4949119.
11. Liu M, Tay N.H.S, Bell S, Belusko M, Jacob R, Will G, Saman W, Bruno. Review on concentrating solar
power plants and new developments in high temperature thermal energy storage technologies. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews (2016); 53: 1411–1432.
12. NREL, (2015). SAM Software. Available at: https://sam.nrel.gov/download
Jacob R, Saman W, Belusko M, Bruno F (2014). Techno-Economic Analysis of Phase Change Material
Thermal Energy Storage Systems in High Temperature Concentrated Solar Power Plants. Asia-Pacific Solar
Research Conference: http://apvi.org.au/solar-research-conference/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/6-R-
Jacob_peer_reviewed.pdf.

080012-8