Energy Storage in Utah: New Report Calls for CAES

Pete Singer
December 16, 2010 | 7 Comments

An environmental group in Utah called HEAL Utah (Healthy Environment ALliance of Utah) issued a report earlier this week titled "eUtah: A Renewable Energy Roadmap". The study, which was written by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D, was commissioned by HEAL Utah. Arjun Makhijani is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland.

The study calls for the use of compressed air energy storage (CAES) as a means of mitigating the inherent intermittency of renewable energy sources such as solar/photovoltaics, solar thermal and wind energy. It was nicely summarized in a report in the New York Times by Matthew Wald "Imagining a Renewable Utah" and a follow-up piece in the Huffington Post "A Green Energy Plan for the Red Heart of the American West."

Although CAES has been in use for over 20 years -- and similar methods are used to store natural gas underground in numerous parts of the world -- currently cavern air storage is only used in two other locations. The first CAES plant, a 290 MW facility, was started up in Huntorf, Germany in 1978, and a 110 MW plant commenced operation in McIntosh, Alabama in 1991. As reported earlier, construction on a compressed-air energy storage (CAES) project named ADELE will begin in 2013 in Staßfurt, a city in Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany. The project is a joint effort between RWE, General Electric, Zueblin, and the German Aerospace Center.

The HEAL Utah report notes that PacifiCorp’s additions to wind capacity in the 2009 to 2020 period are planned to total more than 1,000 MW in its East sector, which includes Utah and Wyoming. "Yet it appears to have no active plans to develop compressed air energy storage, Makhijani notes. "Such storage could convert its intermittent wind capacity into a dispatchable resource of several hundred megawatts. Since compressed air energy storage is the most economical large-scale storage in the Utah context, it is very important to identify sites, estimate their cost and environmental impact, and conduct economic reviews of their location relative to other future elements in the electricity system, including transmission lines and solar and wind generating facilities."

The report describes several different scenarios that combine renewable energy sources with CAES; one is shown here.

For more information on Energy Storage, see www.energystoragetrends.com

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

7 Comments

Natty Bumpo
December 18, 2010

I agree. Pumped storage can be built where CAES can't, and vice-versa. As far as I know, the Magnum site is the only good site available in Utah for CAES, pending further work on aquifer- and hard rock-based CAES caverns. Batteries and flywheels have their niche, too, at the shorter storage time/faster response end of the spectrum. Although...there are some pumped storage options in technology that can react as fast as batteries. But batteries remain more modular and universally locatable.

Garth Barker
December 18, 2010

The company I do consulting for is about to file for FERC license on a 1000Mw closed loop pumped storage project; they have to build two reservoirs but the trade off is no environmental nexus, a three year licensing process just about offsets the additional cost. Also removing the project from recreational issues removes the "nimbyism". At $1500/kw installed it would be hard to beat with other storage types.

Natty Bumpo
December 17, 2010

Yes, CAES is the least expensive to build. Natural gas is part of the operating cost, along with the electricity you have to buy, and O&M. CAES uses .7 kWh of electricity plus 3,900 BTu of gas to produce 1 kWh of electricity. Pumped storage uses 1.25 kWh to produce 1 kWh of electricity, but obviously doesn't consume any natural gas.

Natty Bumpo
December 17, 2010

ericmair: CAES is not expensive. In fact, it is the least expensive bulk energy storage technology around, and the only established one other than pumped storage. The two CAES plants that are operating today are 290 MW and 110 MW, respectively; have been operating for 32 and 21 years, respectively, and at levels of reliability approaching 100%; and both use salt geology similar to what the Utah plant would be using. Dresser-Rand has a standard compressor/turbine train (Google them and CAES to get to the brochure), and others are offering slightly different designs. And your note that CAES is more expensive than pumped storage is inaccurate; CAES is about $1,000/kW. Pumped storage will run about 50% more, for a good site. Plus you get tens of hours of storage with CAES, which is hard for pumped storage. Finally, unlike pumped storage, CAES is not licensed by FERC, which makes it easier and faster to build. As if that was not enough, the Magnum site is right next to transmission, and the infrastructure for cavern construction will already be in place if it follows the gas storage creation. If Utah has a good CAES site, it should use it.

Garth Barker
December 17, 2010

Good article and right on about Utah's position as a storage center due to its location however a CLPS or closed loop pumped storage project is about to file for FERC licensing; located in south central Utah and removed from the aquatic and environmental nexus' Parker Knoll CLPS is ahead of the game. There is one other CLPS in the licensing process but located in northern Utah, both projects are ideally located to assist wind and transmission congestion while providing balancing services.

shamil ayntrazi
December 17, 2010

FACTS
? Lot of efforts and funds had been wasted on systems that are in conflict with physical laws, which we have to obey, or no feasibility study were made to check for system viability and economy.
? Compressed Air Injection into the air inlet of turbines is a known and proven technology. So is "Fogging", that is; injecting water vapor into the turbine air inlet.
? If water storage is contemplated, then the cost of: land, building a water storage reservoir and supply/discharge pipes, the cost of pumping the water up to the reservoir and the efficiency of the system to convert water storage potential energy into electric power should all be investigated.
? If CAIS (and not CAES which is a trade name) system is contemplated, then the cost of modifying the underground caves to be hermetically sealed, and the risk of structural vulnerability of the balanced structure of the cave as it would be subjected to high and low pressure, together with the cost of compressed air supply and discharge piping should be investigated. Again a feasibility study to be provided to determine construction costs, cost to compress the air and the energy retrieved from the compressed air. Does this make the CAIS viable?
WONDERLAND
a. A recent important project was abandoned because it was discovered that the cost of bring electric power to the shore costs 60 million US$. This calculation can and should have been made in the preliminary sturdy.
b. A large corporation is requesting government funding to investigate the cost of producing Hydrogen to be used as a fuel for cars. What a waste!
PROPOSAL
• The funds allocated to provide water storage or compressed air storage, can be provided to install a Renewable Energy Wave Gear Drive system, where electric power or compressed air can be extracted from wave energy.

Sani Gumede
December 17, 2010

CAES is too complex and too expensive. Pumped storage, as Bob says is the answer, except that conventional PSH encounters some serious environmental issues and is almost as expensive as CAES.
The guys at Gravity Power have a system which can offer all the advantages of PSH without most of the problems and at a lot less cost.
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/grid-scale-electricity-storage.html