Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Comparative Analysis of Technologies for Covering Peak Loads in the Power System

  • Published:
Power Technology and Engineering Aims and scope

One of the key and so far completely unsolved problem of modern power engineering is minimizing the cost of compensating for the imbalance between the generated and consumed powers in power systems. In addition to traditional regulation methods using hydroelectric and thermal power plants, the possibilities of storing power in different forms, including stationary electrochemical storage systems, are being more and more widely used at present. It is planned in future to use the on-board storage batteries of electric vehicles (V2G technology) for this purpose. Traditional and promising future technologies for compensating load fluctuations in electric power systems have their own niche applications and costs under different operating conditions. In this paper we provide comparative estimates of the specific costs when compensating load fluctuations of different duration using traditional technologies, which use flexible power units and peak power plants, and also technologies based on the use of electrochemical electric power storage. The costs for 1 kW h of peak electric power and the costs in theory per 1 kW of peak power are estimated. As follows from the results of the calculations, the use of electrochemical storage is economically useful for continuous operating times of less than 1 h. To cover longer electric consumption fluctuations, the most suitable technologies remain flexible gas turbine systems and simple-cycle and gas-piston equipment under peak conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Akhil, G. Huff, A. Currier, B. Kann, D. Rastler, S. Chen, A. Cotter, D. Bradshaw, and W. Gauntlett (eds.), DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA, Sandia National Lab., Report SAND2013-5131.

  2. O. N. Favorskii, V. B. Alekseev, V. I. Zalkind, Yu. A. Zeigarnik, P. P. Ivanov, D. V. Marinichev, V. L. Nizovskii, and L. V. Nizovskii, “Experimentally studying TV3-117 gas-turbine unit characteristics at superheated water injection into a compressor,” Thermal Eng., 61(5) (2014).

  3. S. Grampsie, “Wet compression boost for power output and efficiency,” Gas Turbine World.

  4. C. Nair Nirmal-Kumar and Garimella Niraj, “Battery energy storage systems: Assessment for small-scale renewable energy integration,” Energy and Buildings, No. 42 (2010).

  5. S. J. Kazempour,M. P. Moghaddam, M. R. Haghifam, and G. R. Yousefi, “Electric energy storage systems in a market-based economy: Comparison of emerging and traditional technologies,” Renewable Energy, No. 34 (2009).

  6. A. Zhuk, K. Denschikov, V. Fortov, A. Sheindlin, and W. Wilczynski, “Hybrid energy storage system based on supercapacitors and Li-ion batteries,” J. Appl. Electrochem., No. 44 (2014).

  7. W. Kempton and S. Letendre, “Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric utilities,” Transportation Res., No. 2 (1997).

  8. J. Tomi and W. Kempton, “Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support,” J. Power Sources, No. 168 (2007).

  9. S. B. Peterson, J. F. Whitacre, and J. Apt, “The economics of using plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery packs for grid storage,” J. Power Sources, No. 195 (2010).

  10. A. Z. Zhuk, E. A. Buzoverov, and A. E. Sheindlin, “Distributed energy storage systems on the basis of electric vehicle fleets,” Thermal Eng., 62(1) (2015).

  11. S. Schoenung, Energy storage systems cost update. A study for DOE storage systems program, Sandia National Lab, Report SAND2011-2730 (2011).

  12. S. Ereev and M. Patel, “Standardized cost estimation for new technologies (SCENT) — methodology and tools,” J. Business Chem., No. 9 (2012).

  13. Investment decisions for baseload power plants, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Final Report 402/012910 (2010).

  14. Updated capital cost estimates for utility scale electricity generating plants, US Energy Information Administration, DC 20585 (2013).

  15. STO 70238424.27.100.016–2009. Steam-Gas Equipment. Organization of Use and Technical Servicing. Standards and Requirements [in Russian], Izd. NP “Invel,” Moscow (2009).

  16. ISO 2977-3:2004. Gas Turbine — Procurement — Part 3: Design Requirements (2004).

  17. STO 70238424.27.040.016–2008. Gas-Turbine Equipment. Installation Conditions. Standards and Requirements [in Russian], Izd. NP “Invel,” Moscow (2008).

  18. A. Back, “Lifecycle cost knowledge will impact power plant investment decisions,” Wartsila Tech. J., No. 2 (2010).

  19. B. Battke, T. Schmidt, D. Grosspietsch, and V. Hoffmann, “A review and probabilistic model of lifecycle costs of stationary batteries in multiple applications,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev., No. 25 (2013).

  20. S. B. Peterson, J. F. Whitacre, and J. Apt, “The economics of using plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery packs for grid storage,” J. Power Sources, No. 195 (2010).

  21. J. Tomic and W. Kempton, “Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support,” J. Power Sources, No. 168 (2007).

  22. N. Takami, H. Imagaki, Y. Tatebayashi, H. Saruwatari, K. Honda, and S. Egusa, “High-power and long-life lithium-ion batteries using lithium titanium oxide anode for automotive and stationary power applications,” J. Power Sources, No. 244 (2013).

  23. D. B. Richardson, “Encouraging vehicle-to-grid (V2G) participation through premium tariff rates,” J. Power Sources, No. 243 (2013).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Z. Zhuk.

Additional information

Translated from Élektricheskie Stantsii, No. 4, April 2015, pp. 20 – 28.

1This investigation was supported by a grant from the Russian Scientific Foundation in Organization-Executor (subsidy recipient) — OVITZ RAN (project 14-50-00124).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhuk, A.Z., Zeigarnik, Y.A., Buzoverov, E.A. et al. A Comparative Analysis of Technologies for Covering Peak Loads in the Power System. Power Technol Eng 49, 310–318 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10749-015-0621-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10749-015-0621-3

Keywords

Navigation