发电技术 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (5): 885-896.DOI: 10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.24136

• 储能 • 上一篇    下一篇

纯氢补燃型和天然气补燃型压缩空气储能系统特性与㶲经济性对比

马宁, 赵攀, 刘艾杰, 许文盼, 王江峰   

  1. 西安交通大学能源与动力工程学院,陕西省 西安市 710049
  • 收稿日期:2024-07-08 修回日期:2024-08-08 出版日期:2025-10-31 发布日期:2025-10-23
  • 作者简介:马宁(1998),男,博士研究生,研究方向为压缩空气储能系统,4123303024@mail.xjtu.edu.cn
    赵攀(1983),男,博士,教授,研究方向为物理储能技术、综合能源系统和可再生能源利用技术等,本文通信作者,panzhao@mail.xjtu.edu.cn
    刘艾杰(1998),男,博士研究生,研究方向为压缩CO2储能系统等,2436303352@qq.com
    许文盼(1995),男,博士研究生,研究方向为压缩CO2储能系统等,xiaoxwp@ stu.xjtu.edu.cn
    王江峰(1981),男,博士,教授,研究方向为分布式能源系统和热力系统集成与动态特性等,jfwang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家科技重大专项智能电网项目(2024ZD0800502)

Comparison of Characteristics and Exergoeconomic Between Hydrogen and Natural Gas-Fueled Compressed Air Energy Storage Systems

Ning MA, Pan ZHAO, Aijie LIU, Wenpan XU, Jiangfeng WANG   

  1. School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Shaanxi Province, China
  • Received:2024-07-08 Revised:2024-08-08 Published:2025-10-31 Online:2025-10-23
  • Supported by:
    Smart Grid-National Science and Technology Major Project(2024ZD0800502)

摘要:

目的 天然气补燃型压缩空气储能(compressed air energy storage,CAES)系统存在环境污染问题,氢气作为替代燃料不会造成温室气体排放,但现阶段对纯氢补燃型CAES系统的技术经济可行性认识不足,因此有必要开展相关研究。 方法 基于㶲和㶲经济分析方法,进行了纯氢补燃型和天然气补燃型CAES系统的对比分析,重点关注其热力学性能、不可逆损失分布、经济性和㶲经济性的影响。此外,探讨了两者参数敏感性。 结果 纯氢补燃型CAES系统在放电时间、储能密度和㶲效率方面均优于天然气补燃型CAES系统;由于氢气成本高于天然气,纯氢补燃型CAES系统的产品平均㶲成本为155.62美元/GJ,显著高于天然气补燃型CAES系统对应的27.57美元/GJ;为使纯氢补燃型CAES系统具备与天然气补燃型CAES系统相同的商用竞争力,推荐售电价格为0.206 2美元/(kW⋅h);此外,纯氢补燃型CAES系统对参数变化更加敏感,在高参数条件下可实现更好的性能提升和成本降低。 结论 研究成果揭示了纯氢补燃型CAES系统的应用潜力,并为其进一步商业推广提供了技术参考。

关键词: 储能, 氢燃料, 压缩空气储能(CAES), ?经济性分析, 敏感性分析

Abstract:

Objectives The natural gas-fueled compressed air energy storage (CAES) system presents environmental pollution challenges, and replacing natural gas with hydrogen as fuel cannot cause greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is currently insufficient understanding of the technical and economic feasibility of the hydrogen-fueled CAES system, so it is necessary to carry out relevant research. Methods Based on exergy and exergoeconomic analysis methods, a comparative analysis is conducted on the thermodynamic performance, distribution of irreversible losses, economic factors, and exergoeconomic performance of the hydrogen and natural gas fueled CAES systems. In addition, the sensitivity of two parameters is also discussed. Results The hydrogen-fueled CAES system outperforms the natural gas-fueled CAES system in terms of discharge time, energy storage density, and exergy efficiency. Due to the higher cost of hydrogen compared with natural gas, the levelized cost per unit exergy of the product for the hydrogen-fueled CAES system is $155.62/GJ, significantly higher than the corresponding cost of $27.57/GJ for the natural gas-fueled CAES system. In order to align the investment payback period of the hydrogen-fueled CAES system with the commercial competitiveness of the natural gas-fueled CAES system, the recommended selling price for electricity should reach $0.206 2/(kW⋅h). Additionally, the hydrogen-fueled CAES system is more sensitive to parameter changes and can achieve better performance improvement and cost reduction under high parameter conditions. Conclusions The research results reveal the potential applications of the hydrogen-fueled CAES system and provide a technical reference for its further commercial promotion.

Key words: energy storage, hydrogen fuel, compressed air energy storage (CAES), exergoeconomic analysis, sensitivity analysis

中图分类号: