Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Pumped hydro energy storage in buildings

Guilherme de Oliveira e Silva ⇑, Patrick Hendrick
Aero-Thermo-Mechanics Dept. (ATM), École Polytechnique, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s

Novel analysis of unique building with integrated pumped hydro energy storage system.

Full parameterisation of pumped hydro energy storage in buildings.

Feasibility of pumped hydro energy storage in buildings is studied.

Conditions for a better competitiveness of this technology are discussed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The growing use of variable energy sources is pushing the need for energy storage. With Pumped Hydro
Received 27 January 2016 Energy Storage (PHES) representing most of the world’s energy storage installed capacity and given its
Received in revised form 31 May 2016 maturity and simplicity, the question stands as to whether this technology could be used on a smaller
Accepted 14 July 2016
scale, namely in buildings. In this paper, the feasibility of such an installation is analysed by modelling
Available online 9 August 2016
each one of its components and applying it to several installation scenarios. Proposed and existing instal-
lations are also reviewed, including a first-time analysis of an installation in France, which is presumably
Keywords:
the only existing building with an integrated PHES system. It was found that the economies of scale that
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES)
Energy storage in buildings
render large PHES installations competitive are not present in small installations. This limitation, associ-
Distributed energy storage ated to other important disadvantages, such as the large volume required, seem to point out PHES as an
Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) ill-suited solution for energy storage in buildings, an important finding for building design and energy
policy. Nevertheless, if synergies with existing reservoirs could be found (for example for a building on
a riverside), costs could be significantly lowered. Further research on possible synergies with other build-
ing systems as well as a life-cycle assessment analysis are recommended.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction known technology offering water storage and easy installation

With the increasing use of variable energy sources in power
grids, there is a growing mismatch between when energy is
produced and when it is consumed [1,2]. This has led to the need
for energy storage or demand-response in favour of a balanced
and efficient use of energy [3,4]. At the same time, there is a
growing trend towards the decentralisation of power sources (like
photovoltaics), which coupled with the important share of energy
consumption in buildings suggests that these will play an ever
more important role in the electric power industry, namely
through decentralised energy storage [5]. There are different
technologies available for energy storage but, on a global scale,
most of the energy storage capacity comes from large installations
of Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) [3]. Today, it is a well-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: goliveir@ulb.ac.be (G. de Oliveira e Silva).
and maintenance due to its simplicity and maturity [5,6].
The characteristics of PHES have raised the interest for smaller-
scale installations [7,8], namely in buildings, but there is still a sig-
nificant lack of information regarding the technical feasibility and
economic viability of PHES in buildings which needs to be
addressed [1,3,5]. Currently, the availability and characteristics of
the required equipment (such as water turbines or water storage
tanks) for such an installation are not clear, especially given the
scarce theoretical studies available and the absence of data on real
installations [7]. The energy storage potential and its impact on the
building’s consumption also require assessment. Design methods,
such as the choice to install variable-frequency turbomachinery,
need further research to take into account the specifics of small-
scale installations [7]. Such specifics also require further research
in the case of multiple storage systems, whose complexity hinders
an optimal design and operation [1]. The interaction between
water supply systems and energy storage also needs to be assessed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.046
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250
[3]: though water distribution systems can be used for demand-
response [9] and show good complementarity with PV installations
[10], the question stands whether synergies could be found
between such systems in a building.
To account for the research gaps described before, proposed and
existing installations found in the literature are reviewed and, for
the first time, an existing building with an integrated PHES system
(the only one of its kind, to the authors’ knowledge) is analysed. All
components of the PHES system are then parameterised, providing
important data to designers and researchers. A PHES installation in
a building is modelled and the technical and economic feasibility of
such installation is discussed.
Section 2 starts with a description of proposed and existing
installations. In Section 3 the PHES parameterisation and
modelling is presented and discussed, followed by the results for
different scenarios and discussion in Section 4 and the conclusions
in Section 5.
2. Existing and proposed PHES systems in buildings
For PHES, two reservoirs at different heights are used. To store
energy, water is pumped from the lower reservoir to the higher
reservoir. To later retrieve that energy, water is transferred from
the higher reservoir to the lower reservoir through a turbine [6].
The use of small-scale PHES has been studied before but for power
and energy capacities several times superior to those that could fit
in a building [11,12]. Caralis et al. [13] and Ma et al. [7], for
instance, provide estimates for the cost of PHES components in
islands. Stenzel and Linssen [3] analysed the use of existing
waterways for energy storage, while Kusakana [14] studied the
feasibility of small-scale PHES coupled to hydrokinetic power for
electricity supply to isolated areas. Nevertheless, the cost parame-
terisation done for high-capacity PHES (usually in the form of €/kW
or €/kW h cost estimates) is often the one used for smaller-scale
projects [14], without taking into account the cost differences that
could result nor the fact that these cost estimates are very site-
specific and not enough consistent data is publically available to
extrapolate costs on such terms [15].
Regarding PHES in buildings, there are few references in the lit-
erature and only references to projects could be found, not existing
installations. Fonseca and Schlueter [16], for instance, proposed
and simulated such a system for an informal community of 3000
people occupying an abandoned complex of five unfinished build-
ings in Caracas (Venezuela). The proposed system comprised of a
total storage capacity of 85 kW h using water tanks distributed
through different floors due to load floor restrictions. The use of
a PHES system increased the calculated energy cost when com-
pared to lead-acid batteries, but the authors defended that impor-
tant externalities, such as a secure provision of water and
technological simplicity, rendered it as the best choice. Stoppato
et al. [1] simulated and optimised the installation of a hybrid
cogeneration system in an isolated tourism resort, with a capacity
of 170 people, in northern Italy, for the supply of electricity, heat
and water. The system consisted of an internal combustion engine
coupled to photovoltaics, a boiler, lead-acid batteries, thermal and
water storage and a PHES system. Water is stored in concrete
reservoirs at a height difference of 50 m and a single, reversible
pump is used. Although the cost figures used seem optimistic,
the optimum required 175 m3 water reservoirs coupled to a
7 kW pump (giving an estimated storage capacity of 24 kW h and
an energy-to-power ratio of 3.5 h) together with 148 kW h of bat-
tery storage. The use of a PHES system resulted in a reduction of
the discharge rate and depth-of-discharge of the batteries,
effectively increasing their lifetime and decreasing the overall
costs. The authors also discussed the public awareness to issues
1243
such as CO2 emissions mitigation as an important externality,
especially for tourism resorts.
For existing PHES systems, the closest that could be found were
references to small-capacity installations supplying small
communities. Among these, the only installation small enough to
be comparable to an installation in a building is described by
Manolakos et al. [17] for a remote village of 13 houses in a Greek
island. The installation comprises of a stand-alone system of
18 kW photovoltaics coupled to a 100 A h lead-acid battery bank
and a PHES system consisting of two 150 m3 water tanks with a
height difference of 100 m from which an energy capacity of about
40 kW h was estimated. Two multistage centrifugal pumps are
used: one for pumping while the other is reversed and used as a
turbine. The pump rotation speed is adjusted according to the
available excess power through a frequency regulation device. No
information is provided regarding the economics of the installa-
tion, but the authors point out the additional use of the pumped
water for irrigation and household water supply, as well as the
accessible maintenance, as important advantages. Round-trip
efficiency of the PHES system is estimated at about 30% [17].
2.1. The Goudemand residence
In this section, the Goudemand apartment building complex in
Arras (France) is analysed, where part of the common areas were
rendered grid-independent with the use of wind power, photo-
voltaics, battery energy storage and an integrated PHES system.
This is probably the only existing building with an integrated PHES
system, and the descriptions given here are based on a visit with
the contractor to the building, in April 2015, followed by e-mail
exchanges. The owner of the building, Pas-de-Calais habitat,
proved reluctant in providing any information other than the little
already made public, limiting the analysis that could be done of
such an innovative installation.
The Goudemand residence is managed by Pas-de-Calais habitat,
a social operator responsible for planning, developing and main-
taining real estate and related infrastructures in the Pas-de-Calais
region in Northeastern France. It is mostly active in rundown areas
where it builds or restores existing buildings, creates new public
services and lays out improved transportation facilities with the
goal of revitalising problematic neighbourhoods. The social opera-
tor currently has about 100,000 tenants in 40,000 dwellings, and
builds around 700 more per year according to the needs of its
inhabitants [18,19]. Among these buildings is the Goudemand
residence, a three building complex built in 1975 with 240 apart-
ments, housing approximately 700 people (Fig. 1).
The Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, where the city of Arras is
located, has set an energy development path largely based on Jer-
emy Rifkin’s third industrial revolution concept presented in his
2011 homonymously titled book [21]. By 2050, the region intends
to approximately halve its energy consumption and have its entire
energy needs covered by renewable energy sources [21]. This new
strategy, coupled with the rising strain of energy costs on family
budgets in France [22], has pushed the Pas-de-Calais habitat social
operator to test strategies aimed at reducing energy consumption,
increasing the share of renewable energy sources and reducing
energy costs [19]. In 2012, a major renovation took place in the
Goudemand complex, with the goal of testing different technolo-
gies and setting a roadmap for further implementation in other
buildings. First, the energy consumption of the common areas
was strongly reduced with the installation of LED lighting coupled
to presence sensors and energy-efficient intercommunication
devices (intercoms), allowing for a reduction in the electricity con-
sumption of common areas from 255 kW h to 47 kW h per year (an
80% reduction). In one of the buildings, nine 240 W photovoltaic
panels were installed together with two 500 W vertical-axis wind
1244 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250
Fig. 1. Southern view of the Goudemand residence complex before the installation
of the PHES system [20].
turbines and a PHES system coupled to lead-acid batteries. The
photovoltaic panels and the wind turbines charge the batteries
and supply electricity to the common areas of the residence. When
the local generation of electricity is not enough to supply the local
demand, the batteries start discharging. When these reach a cer-
tain depth of discharge, the PHES system starts feeding the local
grid and recharges the batteries. If the local generation of electric-
ity exceeds the local demand and the batteries cannot absorb more
energy, the PHES system starts pumping.
Electricity is consumed in the common areas of the three build-
ings for intercoms, lighting (main and emergency), fire sensors and
lifts. Existing AC 230 V intercoms were switched for more efficient
12 V DC models, easier to couple to the battery bank, reducing
costs and energy losses. Main lighting was provided by incandes-
cent light bulbs, which are all activated (the entire stairwell) by
push buttons and deactivated by a timer. This system is inefficient
since, for instance, someone leaving from the first floor would
unnecessarily light all the floors. Following the same reasoning,
someone leaving from the uppermost floor and taking the lift
would again light up all the floors when they would only need to
light up their floor and the ground floor. Having an individual light-
ing system per floor and considering that every person takes the
lift, energy consumption for lighting in a 10-storey building is
expected to be reduced by more than 80%. The inefficient lighting
system was replaced by 24 W 12 V LED fixtures coupled to pres-
ence and photosensors which allow each fixture to be activated
independently and only when there is insufficient natural light.
These LED fixtures improved the light quality and are also expected
to bring long-term savings in terms of maintenance since they
have a longer lifetime, reducing the need for relamping. The lift
is the only element of the common areas still using electricity from
the grid, since its energy consumption is characterised by high
power peaks that would greatly increase the cost of the power
electronics used.
For energy production, the building uses nine 230 W photo-
voltaic panels and two 500 W vertical axis wind turbines (Fig. 2).
Due to electrical problems with the wind turbines, these were
deactivated and one was replaced by a different model.
Energy is stored using two different systems: a lead-acid gel
battery bank and a PHES system. The battery bank consists of
twelve 1200 A h 2 V gel lead-acid batteries assembled in two
parallel banks of six batteries for a total nominal capacity of
2400 A h at 12 V (Fig. 3). The battery bank is allowed to discharge
up to 85%, giving it a useful capacity of about 2000 A h and an
Fig. 2. View of the systems installed on the roof of the easternmost building of the
Goudemand residence complex with the two original wind turbines [19].
Fig. 3. Top view of the existing lead-acid battery bank.
estimated lifetime of 1000 cycles [23]. This battery ends up work-
ing as a buffer not only for the renewable energy sources but also
for the PHES system whose power output is binary (on or off).
The PHES system makes use of the 30 m height of the building
to store energy under the form of potential energy. Five rectangular
10 m3 plastic water tanks were placed in the basement to be used
as the lower reservoir for a total capacity of 50 m3. The upper
reservoir consists of an open water tank on the roof with an area
of 200 m2 and a depth of 30 cm, being able to hold up to 60 m3
of water (Fig. 2). This upper tank is never fully emptied and it
was built by applying a waterproof cover on the roof. This is the
same method normally used for waterproofing with the exception
that, in this case, a further vertical part of the surrounding wall was
also covered. Typically, the waterproofing would have cost €10,000
while the upper tank version cost €10,700, a 7% difference. The
contractor also mentions that the large weight resulting from this
reservoir (60 tonnes) is supported by the building, since it must be
designed to support the weight of accumulated water in the roof in
case of clogging of the drainpipes. The upper reservoir also proved
useful in restraining the access of trespassers to the wind turbines.
Maintenance is reduced to oiling the turbine and cleaning the
upper tank once a year, which is not high enough to avoid the accu-
mulation of debris, including plastic bags and dead birds. Although
working on a closed loop, rain and evaporation make it necessary
to regulate the water level throughout the year. For 50 m3 and an
estimated height of 30 m, the useful energy stored is about
3.5 kW h.
The turbine used is a 450 W Pelton turbine. Water discharge is
controlled by an 18 W electrovalve while pumping is performed
using a 1.5 kW multi-stage pump.
The economics of the project are difficult to evaluate as little
information was made public. The total cost of the project (includ-
ing the measures taken for energy reduction and systems for local
energy production and storage) is estimated by the contractor at
approximately €150,000. The only information publicly disclosed
 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250 1245

Table 1 3.1. The Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE)

Cost estimates for the Goudemand residence renovation.

Element Capital cost (VAT incl.) There are different methods to evaluate the economic value of
Total €100,000 an energy project. The LCOE is a method that allows obtaining
Energy use reduction €27,000 the price per energy unit that balances out all the costs of the pro-
LED fixtures (60)a €5000 ject. It is obtained by adding up all the costs and dividing this sum
Intercoms (240)a €20,000 by all the energy provided. The values must be discounted to take
Presence sensors (30)a €2000
Energy production and storage €73,000
into account the time-varying value of money. The LCOE (€/kW h)
Photovoltaicsb €6000 is given by
Wind turbinesa €24,000 PN n
Batteriesa €5000 ðCn =ð1 þ dÞ Þ
PHES €38,000
LCOE ¼ PNn¼0 n
ð3Þ
Water tanks (lower reservoir)a €17,000 n¼0 ðEout =ð1 þ dÞ Þ

Pumpa €4000
Turbinea €2000
Pipinga €2000
Roofing (upper reservoir)c €1000
Electronics and controla €7000
Othera €5000
a
Estimate from contractors and equipment suppliers contacted. Includes all the
necessary equipment and installation.
b
A specific cost of €3000/kW was considered for an installation capacity of 2 kW.
c
Total roofing cost was of €10,000 but the contractor estimated that the changes
required for storing water represented about €700.
by Pas-de-Calais habitat is that they expect an immediate gain of
€50 per year per building by avoiding the grid connection fees
for the common areas [19]. Taking into account that the grid
connection will still be needed (as for example for the lifts), and
given the difference in order of magnitude of the given values, such
justification seems far-fetched. Despite the lack of detailed cost
information, an estimation of disaggregated cost components is
presented in Table 1. Values are separated into two main cate-
gories: energy use reduction (for the three buildings) and local
energy production and storage (installed in only one of the build-
ings). Most values are obtained from discussions with contractors
and equipment suppliers.
3. PHES modelling
For PHES, two reservoirs at different heights are used. To store
energy, water is pumped from the lower to the higher reservoir.
Later, that energy can be retrieved by passing the water from the
higher reservoir to the lower reservoir through a turbine. The
amount of energy stored E (J) is given by
E ¼ qV g h ð1Þ
where q is the density of water (kg/m3), V is the volume of water at
the higher reservoir (m3), g is the gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
and h is the height difference between reservoirs (m) considering
that the water level variation on the reservoirs is negligible when
compared to their height difference. Considering a constant water
density of 1000 kg/m3 and a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/
s2, the amount of energy stored E (kW h) is approximately given by
E  V h=367 ð2Þ
where V is the volume of water at the higher reservoir (m3) and h is
the height difference between the reservoirs (m). This gives PHES a
volumetric energy density of 0.056 W h/l for a 20 m height. Other
energy storage technologies, such as Li-ion batteries for instance,
can offer much higher energy densities up to 600 W h/l [6]. Despite
having a low energy density, the low specific cost of large scale
PHES installations in favourable sites has allowed it to become
the most used energy storage technology worldwide.
where Cn is the cost in year n (€), Eout is the energy output in year n
(kW h), d is the real yearly discount rate (%) and N is the project
duration (year) [24]. This formula can be simplified. It can be
considered that the cost Cn consists only of the cost of electricity
purchase at a price Pin (€/kW h) and the capital cost in year 0 C0
(€). The total efficiency of the system gtotal and the yearly energy
output Eout (kW h) can also be considered to remain constant. In
this case, the LCOE (€/kW h) becomes
C0 Pin
LCOE ¼  þ ð4Þ
Eout ð1þdÞN 1 gtotal
dð1þdÞN
For a real yearly discount rate d of 5% and a project duration N
of 25 years, the LCOE (€/kW h) becomes
C0 Pin
LCOE  þ ð5Þ
14  Eout gtotal
This simplified formula intuitively shows the effect of two fac-
tors on the LCOE for such a project. In the first factor, the energy
output Eout must be maximised to dilute the capital cost of the
installation and reduce the LCOE. This means having the system
operate on a high capacity factor, i.e. fully charging/discharging
the maximum number of days per year [25]. The dimensioning of
the system, not only in terms of energy capacity but also in terms
of power capacity will play a significant role on Eout and should be
optimised by simulating the system for different capacities using
real consumption data [4]. An over dimensioned system will be
underutilised while an under dimensioned system will not be able
to make full use of the scale economies present in such projects,
increasing the LCOE [7]. In the second part, the energy buy price
Pin is adjusted according to the efficiency gtotal of the energy stor-
age system to reflect the cost of energy losses. This allows a fair
comparison of different energy storage technologies with varying
efficiencies. For instance, for a given energy buy price Pin, an energy
storage system with an efficiency gtotal = 100% would have no
losses and, consequently, the cost of the energy supplied is still
Pin. On the other hand, for an energy storage system with an effi-
ciency gtotal = 50%, half of the energy input would be lost, effec-
tively increasing its cost to 2 Pin.
3.2. Water reservoir
In a building, to increase the stored energy, the reservoirs
should be placed at the maximum height difference. Unconven-
tional configurations such as underground lower reservoirs
[26,27] have been suggested, but the risk-aversion to such novel
configurations would probably favour an installation at the ground
floor and at the roof. There is a limit on the maximum load appli-
cable on the roof with today’s regulation demanding a minimum
load capacity of 1500 kg/m2, which roughly corresponds to
1.5 m3/m2 of water [28]. If placed outside, reservoirs would be
subjected to radiation which could limit the lifetime of some
plastic water tanks. Low temperatures could also freeze the water,
1246 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250
Horizontal Vertical
Fig. 4. Depiction of different types of water tanks.
rendering the system inoperable while the resulting density varia-
tion of water freezing could also damage the reservoirs. Both reser-
voirs could be open, possibly resembling a decorative lake or a
varying height pool. In buildings next to rivers or canals, these
could be used as the lower reservoir. An open top reservoir could
also be partly refilled with rainwater but even considering a yearly
rainfall of 4 m3/m2 (the average upper limit in Europe [29]), this
would only represent 44 kW h for a 200 m2 roof area, 20 m height
building (218 W h/m2 year). Open reservoirs would also be sub-
jected to debris, requiring a filtering system while losses through
evaporation would also reduce the system efficiency. Given water’s
high heat capacity, a thermal storage system could also be envi-
sioned or the water available could be used to increase the build-
ing’s thermal mass.
Synergies could be found with the building’s existing water
infrastructure, as suggested by Fonseca and Schlueter [16].
Nevertheless, the high volumes required for a meaningful storage
capacity, and, consequently, the large water flows, are in disagree-
ment with a typical potable water network. Also, the installation
would have to respect potable water norms, affecting the choice
of the required equipment (such as the water tanks and
turbine/pump). On the other hand, in the case of mandatory rain-
water collection (as currently happens in Brussels), the large
required volumes and laxer water use norms seem a better match
for PHES. Given the countless possibilities, the detailed analysis is
focused only on plastic water tanks.
There are four main types of plastic water tanks (Fig. 4). Rectan-
gular water tanks are available in smaller dimensions, since their
higher ratio of area to volume and uneven wall stress distribution
requires a sturdier construction, which consequently renders them
costly. Since conventional buildings usually contain many corners,
the advantage of rectangular water tanks lies in their shape, as it
allows for an efficient placement without creating dead spaces.
Fig. 5. Capital cost per unit of volume for different types of water tanks.
Flexible Rectangular
Horizontal water tanks are available to a higher range but are also
limited by the need of a base structure to compensate the base wall
stresses. They are mainly adapted to vehicles. Vertical water tanks
are available up to a higher volume only surpassed by flexible
water tanks which require a larger area, but given the low thick-
ness of the plastic wall and production ease, are relatively inexpen-
sive. They are mainly used for agricultural applications.
Several manufacturers were contacted and a database of plastic
water tanks was built. All water tanks considered are made of a
single wall of plastic, are UV resistant and the price includes VAT
and delivery to Belgium (Fig. 5).
The specific cost of water tanks is dependent on each type and
volume. Flexible water tanks present an average price of about
€70/m3 (including a plastic protection layer) while vertical water
tanks stand at about €300/m3. The installation costs must be added
to these prices, including all the required accessories and labour
which are very site-specific.
3.3. Piping and pressure losses
Several types of pipes can be used. Several suppliers provided
the price of grey, rigid PVC pipes with different diameters, with-
standing 4 bar of pressure (Fig. 6).
The average cost of the considered pipe for an area superior to
0.01 m2 is about €500/m2/m. Accessories for fitting the pipes and
fixing them should increase by 2–3 times the cost plus the labour
required for the installation, which is strongly site-dependent. A
linear installation in an open, easily accessible space would be
much cheaper than one running through the interior of a building,
eventually requiring the opening of passages for the pipe. The
Fig. 6. Capital cost per unit of area for 1 m PVC pipe.
 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250 1247

several contractors contacted advised that the pipe should be

placed in the interior of the building only if there was an accessible
pre-existing opening. Otherwise, an exterior fixation, although
requiring a raising platform, would be cheaper for a 20 m height
building.
For the pressure loss in the piping system, the Darcy-Weisbach
formula [30] was used. For a friction coefficient of 0.01 and an
average flow velocity of 2–4 m/s, a pressure loss of about 0.06 m
per meter of pipe is obtained. The pressure loss in fittings was
calculated using the equivalent length method [30]. If an ideal
installation, without any bends, is considered, an equivalent head
loss of 2–4 m is obtained for a 20 m height installation. These
results are in accordance with the average pressure loss of 0.2 m
per meter of pipe recommended by the contacted suppliers.

3.4. Pump/turbine

The economics of a PHES system in a building will be strongly

affected by the pump/turbine chosen since it will impact not only
the capital cost C0 of the installation but also its efficiency gtotal
and the energy output Eout. The higher the price of the energy input
Pin, the higher the impact of the efficiency gtotal on the LCOE. On
the other hand, the power rating of the pump/turbine will strongly
affect its usability and hence the energy output Eout. Ideally, the
trade-off between the capital cost and performance characteristics
of the pump/turbine should be calculated for each installation. This
can be, however, a long and expensive process as it is very
site-specific and it strongly depends on the local energy demand
and production [2].
For a given pump/turbine design, losses are associated to inter-
nal leakage and friction of its mechanical components with the
passing fluid, between the mechanical components or the fluid
itself [31]. The efficiency of optimal pump/turbines increases with
the handled flow as the relative importance of losses is reduced for
larger pump/turbine sizes [31].
There are several types of pumps available. Centrifugal pumps
are currently a widely available and cheap option, as these are
mass-produced for a large range of working conditions well-
suited to the ones required for a PHES system in a building. The
online selector of a European pump manufacturer was used to
map out the efficiency and cost curves from the best efficiency
point of about 200 centrifugal pumps with head ranging from 4
to 45 m and hydraulic power ranging from 0.1 to 6 kW (Fig. 7).
About 4–8 man-hours for the installation of each pump/turbine
should also be added to the costs presented. For example, for a
1.5 kW, 20 m pump, efficiency can be estimated at approximately
57% and the cost at about €1.8/W plus the 4–8 man-hours required
for the installation.
As justified before, small-scale water pumps are typically less
efficient and have a higher specific cost (cost per power capacity)
than their larger counterparts. Installations with a minimum head
of 10 m and hydraulic power of about 1.5 kW seem to offer strong
advantages in terms of high efficiency and low specific cost.
Turbine manufacturers do not tend to produce hydraulic tur-
bines for low power applications [32]. One solution is to use a
pump in reverse mode, a technique known as Pump as Turbine
(PAT). For PHES this is especially convenient, as two components
(the pump and the turbine) can be replaced by a single one. Data
of PATs is usually not provided by pump manufacturers, but
several prediction methods have been suggested as reviewed by
Jain and Patel [32]. These prediction methods point out that peak
efficiency in turbine mode is approximately the same as in pump
mode, though achievable at higher head and flow values [32]. A
reduced efficiency is especially disadvantageous when using a
single pump/turbine, since this will impact the functioning of the
system twice: during charge and discharge. For instance, a PHES
Fig. 7. Maximum efficiency and capital cost of centrifugal pumps.
system with charge/discharge efficiency of 60% would have a max-
imum overall efficiency of 36%.
Pumps can also be electronically-controlled allowing the use of
higher capacity pumps at partial load. The option for an
electronically-controlled pump comes from the trade-off between
increased efficiency and increased cost. For instance, Manolakos
et al. [17] justified the installation of an electronically-controlled
pump indicating that ‘‘it is preferable to exploit any excess power
at low efficiency than dump it as power losses”. This reasoning,
however, does not take into account the accrued cost of
electronically-controlled pumps. The efficiency and cost curves
for electronically-controlled pumps were mapped out from about
150 duty points for the same range of values as for non-
electronically-controlled pumps (Fig. 8).
As expected, when comparing Figs. 7 and 8 there is an increase
in the specific cost and efficiency for electronically-controlled
pumps. The trade-off to upgrade the pump/turbine to a more effi-
cient and expensive electronically-controlled pump can be
assessed by considering
LCOEg high < LCOEg low
where LCOEg high refers to the upgraded electronically-controlled
installation. Replacing with the previously derived LCOE equation
(Eq. (5)),
Dg2 þ 2Dgglow
DC0 < 14Eout Pin ð6Þ
g2low ðglow þ DgÞ2
where DC0 (€/kW) is the maximum capital cost available to upgrade
the installation, glow is the efficiency of the existing installation and
Dg is the efficiency increase of the upgraded installation. This for-
mula shows that the higher the electricity price Pin (€/kW h) and the
power output Eout (kW h/kW), the more capital cost C0 there is
available to upgrade to a higher efficiency system. It also shows that
as glow increases, the maximum capital cost DC0 available for a
given efficiency gain Dg decreases. For example, for an
electricity input price Pin = €0.12/kW h and a power output
Eout = 600 kW h/kW (considering 300 cycles a year for a 2 h system),
the capital cost available to upgrade the system from an efficiency
glow = 40% by Dg = 10% is DC0 = €2268/kW. Under the same
1248 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250

the delivery of technical drawings. Maintenance costs are also con-

sidered to be negligible, as with the Goudemand residence.
Several factors not accounted for might have an important
impact on the obtained values. One of these factors is the space
required. PHES has a low energy density requiring a large volume
for a given amount of energy. This required volume is especially
important in urban areas where area prices are high. In Belgium,
for example, area prices can vary between an average of €2400/
m2 in Brussels to €1700/m2 in a smaller town as Liège [34]. This
value represents the average value for apartments. The reservoirs
could be placed in less-valued places such as roofs or basements.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Case studies

Using the results obtained previously, two different case studies

for PHES in buildings were developed (Table 2).
As seen before, there are important economies of scale
associated to PHES. As so, only tall buildings, namely apartment
buildings, will be considered: a theoretical 20 m height building
with a floor surface of about 200 m2, enough to house four 50 m2
apartments per floor (as in the Goudemand residence) or two
100 m2 apartments per floor (Table 3).
Fig. 8. Maximum efficiency and capital cost of electronically-controlled centrifugal
pumps.
In both cases an open top reservoir is used (as in the
Goudemand residence) with an area of 200 m2 and a depth of
conditions, DC0 = €1232/kW for a glow = 50% and DC0 = €743/kW for
a glow = 60%. Table 2
Case studies description.
Using the previous formula (Eq. (6)) on the results presented in
Figs. 7 and 8, it is concluded that non-electronically-controlled Case Description
pumps should be used since the increase in efficiency given by 1 PHES system with a vertical rigid tank at the bottom and an open
the electronically-controlled pumps does not cover the increased water tank at the top. The tanks are placed at a height difference of
capital cost. 20 m and have a capacity of 80 m3
2 PHES system with an open water tank at the top. The lower reservoir is
In high-capacity PHES installations, there has been a trend
considered to already exist (it could be a canal for example). The tanks
towards units with higher flexibility of operation, improving the are placed at a height difference of 20 m and have a capacity of 80 m3
capacity to provide ancillary services [33]. This higher flexibility
is obtained through the use of variable speed and geometry units
or through hydraulic configurations with short-circuits or by using Table 3
parallel sets of pumps/turbines [33]. For small-scale installations, Cost calculation.
this flexibility would also be an advantage. However, as seen Case 1 2
before, electronically-controlled pumps/turbines are not economi- System capacity (kW h)a 3.7 3.7
cally advantageous while the use of pumps/turbines in parallel System capacity (kW)b 1.5 1.5
would require the use of smaller capacity individual units with Energy out Eout (kW h/year)c 1000 1000
lower efficiency and higher specific cost. Capital cost C0 (€) 45,500 18,500
Upper reservoird 1000 1000
Lower reservoire 27,000 3000
3.5. Electronics and control Pipingf 2000 2000
Pump/turbineg 6500 3500
In terms of hardware, an automated PHES system would require a Electronics 7000 7000
Other 2000 2000
controller receiving data from the water level sensors in the reser-
Electricity price Pin (€/kW h) 0.12 0.12
voirs and the state-of-charge indication of the batteries. Output Total efficiency gtotal 35% 35%
would consist of opening/closing an electrovalve directing the flow Real yearly discount rate d 5% 5%
to the turbine and switching the water pump. Total hardware com- Project duration N (year) 25 25
ponents cost for such a system is estimated at €3000–4000 for the LCOE (€/kW h) 3.59 1.66
controller, sensors and actuators. The cost of programming such a a
Calculated from Eq. (2) considering an equivalent head loss of 3 m.
system is estimated at €2500, although this is highly variable accord- b
The system power capacity is retrieved by considering a 2.5 h system.
ing to the service provider. The electrical installation is estimated to c
It is considered that the system completes a full daily charge/discharge cycle for
take about two days, which together with all the required acces- an equivalent of about 9 months per year.
d
sories (cables, board, etc.) should cost approximately €1500. Estimated from the similar upper reservoir installation of the Goudemand
residence.
e
For case 1, the cost is estimated from the cost average presented in Fig. 5 for
3.6. Other vertical water tanks accrued of €1500 for accessories and about 40 man-hours. For
case 2, contractors estimate that the minimum cost for the connection to an
There are other costs associated with such an installation, existing reservoir would be about €3000.
f
Estimation from contractors.
whose negligibility when compared to the total cost does not g
For case 1, two 1.5 kW pumps (one working in reverse mode) are used. For case
justify further parameterisation. These refer, for example, to 2 a single reversible pump is considered. Cost and efficiency were initially esti-
project design, certification of the installation by authorities or mated from Fig. 7 and later confirmed with pump suppliers.
 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250
50 cm, yielding a total capacity of 100 m3 from which only 80 m3
will be used. Equivalent head losses are considered to be 3 m,
yielding a useful head of 17 m for a system capacity of 3.7 kW h.
In the first case study, rectangular plastic tanks with a total
capacity of 80 m3 are used in the basement as the lower reservoir.
In the second case, the lower reservoir is considered to already
exist (a canal or a pond for example). The pump/turbine is
dimensioned in order to respect an energy-to-power ratio of
2.5 h since this should increase the system use (Eout) and lower
the pump/turbine specific price, reducing the LCOE. From Fig. 7,
for a 1.5 kW pump/turbine a specific cost of about €1.8/W and an
efficiency close to 60% are estimated. However, as explained
before, a correct dimensioning of the pump/turbine would require
an analysis of the local conditions of the installation.
The LCOE obtained for PHES in buildings varies greatly accord-
ing to the type of installation used. Nevertheless, the water tanks
have the biggest impact on the capital cost of the system and
should be the main point addressed for cost reduction. This can
be achieved through synergies with other building systems,
namely water supply [1] as it is already done for large scale PHES
installations [2,3]. Another important parameter is the dimension-
ing of the pump/turbine since it affects not only the capital cost of
the installation but also its efficiency (gtotal) and use (Eout), though,
as previously mentioned, this dimensioning must be done specifi-
cally for each case. Typical grid prices in Brussels, for instance, vary
between €0.18 and €0.23/kW h and none of the cases presents a
LCOE competitive to grid use. Grid parity of a PHES system coupled
to PV could eventually be achieved by reducing the LCOE by about
85%, which is implausible especially given the maturity of the tech-
nology involved [14,35,36]. In the future, provision of services to
the grid can offer better business cases for storage [4]. A sensitivity
analysis allows for a detailed study of the parameters affecting the
LCOE for case study 2 (Fig. 9).
As expected, the LCOE can be reduced through the decrease in the
capital cost C0, discount rate d and energy input price Pin or through
the increase in efficiency gtotal, lifetime N or energy output Eout. In
any case, even varying these parameters by 30%, the LCOE is always
above €1.20/kW h. The cumulated variation of several parameters
could still lower this value but to not less than approximately €1/kW h.
4.2. Comparison with battery storage
There are several technologies available for energy storage.
Although PHES in buildings coupled to PV is far from being
Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis for the LCOE for case study 2.
1249
competitive with grid use, it is important to compare it to other
energy storage technologies. For a fair comparison, the LCOE is
calculated under the same conditions as those used for PHES:
real discount rate d of 5%, electricity price Pin of €0.12/kW h
and a full daily charge/discharge cycle for an equivalent of about
9 months per year, yielding an energy output Eout of about
270 kW h per kW h of useful storage capacity. For lead-acid bat-
teries with a total efficiency gtotal of about 80%, a capital cost C0
of €600/kW h and a lifetime N of four years [6], a LCOE of €0.78/
kW h is obtained. For lithium batteries, considering a total effi-
ciency of 90%, a capital cost of €1000/kW h and a lifetime of
18 years [6], the LCOE is €0.45/kW h. As seen from the previous
sensitivity analysis, these LCOE values below €0.80/kW h are
unreachable with PHES in buildings. Also, there are important
differences between a PHES system and a battery storage system
that may render the LCOE misleading. It would be much easier,
for example, to increase the storage capacity of a battery storage
system than that of a PHES system. Also, the cost of electrochem-
ical batteries continues to decrease, which should strongly affect
the obtained values in the near future, especially for newer che-
mistries, while PHES is dependent on mature technologies (like
hydraulic pumps) whose costs are not expected to strongly
decrease [14,35,36]. All these externalities should be taken into
account in the final decision.
5. Conclusion
PHES in buildings is technically feasible. However, when associ-
ated to local sources of energy in a building, it is still far from
reaching grid parity. Furthermore, it is not economically competi-
tive when compared to other small-scale energy storage systems
that can be incorporated into a building, given the inexistent scale
economies that render high capacity PHES installations competi-
tive: a fundamental finding for consideration in building design
and energy policy. The inexistence of these scale economies can
be explained by the low energy capacity of the system (limited
by the maximum height of the installation and floor load restric-
tions), the high specific cost and low efficiency of some of the
equipment used and the importance of fixed costs. Cost for PHES
in buildings can be strongly decreased through synergies for the
reservoirs as it is done for large scale PHES through the use of geo-
graphically suited sites (close-by canals or decorative ponds could
be used as a lower reservoir for example). Also, the installation
should be large enough to dilute fixed costs and allow the use of
a higher capacity pump/turbine, with lower specific cost and
higher efficiency. The dimensioning of the pump/turbine, which
is very site-specific, would also need to be optimised since it affects
not only the capital cost but also its efficiency and use limits,
strongly affecting the LCOE. Nevertheless, given that PHES is a
mature technology, its cost is not expected to lower significantly,
while other energy storage technologies are expected to enjoy
strong cost reductions [35]. Several externalities are considered
to justify the use of PHES in buildings, namely the easier mainte-
nance due to its simplicity and the synergies with water storage
[16,17]. However, the existing strict potable water norms coupled
with the differences in the dimensioning of PHES and typical water
systems in buildings suggest that such synergies would not be able
to overcome the high LCOE of PHES in buildings, effectively render-
ing it as an ill-suited solution for energy storage in buildings.
The results here obtained can be the basis for a life-cycle assess-
ment of PHES in buildings, allowing for a fairer comparison to
other energy storage technologies. They can also help enhance
research on sustainable construction namely through the analysis
of synergies between PHES in buildings and other building
systems.
1250 G. de Oliveira e Silva, P. Hendrick / Applied Energy 179 (2016) 1242–1250
Acknowledgements
This study has been done in the framework of the Micro Energy
Storage in Buildings project, part of the Brussels Retrofit XL
research platform funded by Innoviris, the Brussels Institute for
Research and Innovation. We would like to thank Mr. Louart and
Mr. De Backer from CRC (France) for their guided visit to the
Goudemand residence and in providing much needed information
for this paper. The authors are also indebted to the numerous
reviewers who provided invaluable insight and much contributed
to the final form of this paper.
References
[1] Stoppato A et al. A model for the optimal design and management of a
cogeneration system with energy storage. Energy Build 2015.
[2] Segurado R et al. Increasing the penetration of renewable energy resources in
S. Vicente, Cape Verde. Appl Energy 2011;88:466–72.
[3] Stenzel P, Linssen J. Concept and potential of pumped hydro storage in federal
waterways. Appl Energy 2016;162:486–93.
[4] Pearre N, Swan L. Technoeconomic feasibility of grid storage: mapping
electrical services and energy storage technologies. Appl Energy 2015;137:
501–10.
[5] Chatzivasileiadi A, Ampatzi E, Knight I. Characteristics of electrical energy
storage technologies and their applications in buildings. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;25:814–30.
[6] Ferreira H et al. Characterization of electrical energy storage technologies.
Energy 2013;53:288–98.
[7] Ma T et al. Technical feasibility study on a standalone hybrid solar-wind
system with pumped hydro storage for a remote island in Hong Kong.
Renewable Energy 2014;69:7–15.
[8] Liu Z, Sasaki H, Sakata I. Study on the academic landscape of hydropower: a
citation-analysis based method and its application. In: IEEE proceedings of
PICMET’14: infrastructure and service integration. p. 3572–9.
[9] Menke R et al. Demonstrating water response from water distribution system
through pump scheduling. Appl Energy 2016;170:377–87.
[10] Kaldellis J, Meidanis E, Zafirakis D. Experimental energy analysis of a stand-
alone photovoltaic-based water pumping installation. Appl Energy 2011;88:
4556–62.
[11] Crettanand N. Storage and pumped-storage plants in Switzerland. Int Water
Power Dam Constr 2012;64.
[12] Rehman S, Al-Hadhrami L, Alam M. Pumped hydro energy storage system: a
technological review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:586–98.
[13] Caralis G et al. On the market of wind with hydro-pumped storage systems in
autonomous Greek islands. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2221–6.
[14] Kusakana K. Feasibility analysis of river off-grid hydrokinetic systems with
pumped hydro storage in rural applications. Energy Convers Manage
2015;96:352–62.
[15] Deane J, Gallachóir B, McKeaogh E. Techno-economic review of existing and
new pumped hydro energy storage plant. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:1293–302.
[16] Fonseca J, Schlueter A. Novel approach for decentralized energy supply and
energy storage of tall buildings in Latin America based on renewable energy
sources: Case study – Informal vertical community Torre David, Caracas –
Venezuela. Energy 2013.
[17] Manolakos D, Papadakis G, Papantonis D, Kyritsis S. A stand-alone photovoltaic
power system for remote villages using pumped water energy storage. Energy
2004.
[18] Pas-de-Calais habitat. Notre métier d’Opérateur Urbain. Retrieved (06/05/
2015). <www.pasdecalais-habitat.fr/fr/accueil/pas-de-calais-habitat/decouvrir-
pas-de-calais-habitat/le-metier-doperateur-urbain.aspx>.
[19] Pas-de-Calais habitat. Transition énergétique: Pas-de-Calais habitat innove et
expérimente l’autonomie énergétique des parties communes dans l’une de ses
résidences. Pas-de-Calais habitat press release; 2012.
[20] Ville d’Arras. Les quartiers d’Arras: Goudemand Saint Michel. Retrieved (07/
05/2015). <www.arras.fr/phototheques/les-quartiers-darras/goudemand-
saint-michel.html>.
[21] Nord Pas de Calais. La troisième révolution industrielle est en marche. <http://
www.nordpasdecalaisthethirdindustrialrevolution.com/understanding-
better/> [retrieved 18/05/2015].
[22] Commissariat général au développement durable – Service de l’observation et
des statistiques. Bilan énergétique de la France pour 2012; 2013.
[23] Enersys. PowerSafe OPzV operation guide for hybrid applications; 2012.
[24] de Oliveira e Silva G, Hendrick P. Lead-acid batteries coupled with
photovoltaics for increased electricity self-sufficiency in households. Appl
Energy 2016;178:856–67.
[25] Poonpun P, Jewell W. Analysis of the cost per kilowatt hour to store electricity.
IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2008;23:529–34.
[26] Olsen J et al. A new principle for underground pumped hydroelectric storage.
J Energy Storage 2015;2:54–63.
[27] Pickard W. The history, present state, and future prospects of underground
pumped hydro for massive energy storage. Proc IEEE 2012;100(2):473–83.
[28] European committee for standardization. Eurocode 1(actions on structures),
Part 1-1 (densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings).
[29] European Environment Agency. Average annual precipitation. <http://www.
eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation> [Visited
online on 12/2014].
[30] Nourbakhsh A et al. Turbopumps and pumping systems. Springer-Verlag;
2008. p. 83–93.
[31] Anderson H. Centrifugal pumps. Trade & technical press limited; 1980.
p. 44–50.
[32] Jain Sanjay, Patel Rajesh. Investigations on pump running in turbine mode: a
review of the state-of-the-art. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:841–68.
[33] Pérez-Díaz J et al. Trends and challenges in the operation of pumped-storage
hydropower plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:767–84.
[34] Immotrace. Évolution du marché immobilier en Belgique. Visited online on 12/
2014. <http://www.immotrace.be/marketTrends.cfm>.
[35] Rubin E et al. A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies.
Energy Policy 2015;86:198–218.
[36] Baker J. New technology and possible advances in energy storage. Energy
Policy 2008;36:4368–73.