Non-restricted Winter 2026 convocation theses and dissertations will be discoverable in ERA on March 16. Congratulations to all our graduates!

Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of large energy storage systems

dc.contributor.advisorKumar, Amit (Mechanical)
dc.contributor.authorKapila, Sahil
dc.contributor.otherKumar, Amit (Mechanical)
dc.contributor.otherMa, Yongsheng (Mechanical)
dc.contributor.otherLi,Yunwei (Ryan) (Computer and Electrical)
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-29T16:35:58Z
dc.date.available2025-05-29T16:35:58Z
dc.date.issued2018-06
dc.description.abstractEnergy storage systems (ESSs) play a key role in the implementation of sustainable energy. However, the life cycle cost, energy use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are important decision factors for their implementation, has received limited attention. For this reason, the economic and environmental implications of implementing ESSs were explored in this thesis. In this study, life cycle assessment models were developed to determine the economic feasibility, net energy ratio (NER), and GHG impact of ESSs. ESSs here refer to pump hydro storage (PHS) and compressed air energy storage (CAES). The PHS stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water by using height differential between two reservoirs whereas CAES stores energy in compressed air. The life cycle assessment (LCA) models were developed using data-intensive bottom-up methods for capacity ranges of 98â491 MW, 81â404 MW, and 60â298 MW for PHS, conventional CAES (C-CAES), and adiabatic CAES (A-CAES), respectively. For CAES systems, cost models were developed for storage in salt caverns, hard rock caverns, and porous formations. The NER was calculated as a ratio of net energy output to the total net energy input, while LCA was conducted based on the direct emissions factor (DEF) and total emissions factor (TEF) of the ESS. The DEF is the amount of emissions associated with the storage systems per kWh of electricity produced. DEF does not include upstream emissions from electricity generation whereas TEF incorporates the upstream emissions from electricity generation in addition to the direct GHG emissions. The results show that the levelised cost of electricity is $69â$121 for PHS, $58â$70 for C-CAES, and $96â$121 per MWh for A-CAES. C-CAES is economically attractive at all capacities, PHS is economically attractive at higher capacities, and A-CAES is not attractive compared to PHS and C-CAES. The NER for PHS, C-CAES, and A-CAES is 0.778, 0.543, and 0.702, respectively. The NER is highest for PHS, followed by A-CAES and then C-CAES. The DEF (gCO2e/KWh) for PHS, C-CAES, and A-CAES, was 7.79, 264.36, and 4.96, respectively. The DEF for C-CAES is significantly higher due to the consumption of natural gas during the production of electricity.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.7939/R3BR8MX3K
dc.language.isoen
dc.rightsThis thesis is made available by the University of Alberta Libraries with permission of the copyright owner solely for non-commercial purposes. This thesis, or any portion thereof, may not otherwise be copied or reproduced without the written consent of the copyright owner, except to the extent permitted by Canadian copyright law.
dc.subjectLife-cycle assessment
dc.subjectPumped hydro storage
dc.subjectTechno-economic assessment
dc.subjectCompressed air energy storage
dc.subjectEnergy storage
dc.titleTechno-economic and life cycle assessment of large energy storage systems
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec
thesis.degree.disciplineEngineering Management
thesis.degree.grantorhttp://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79058482
thesis.degree.levelMaster's
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science
ual.date.graduationSpring 2018
ual.departmentDepartment of Mechanical Engineering
ual.jupiterAccesshttp://terms.library.ualberta.ca/public

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Kapila_Sahil_201801_MSc.pdf
Size:
2.62 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format