Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) efficiency falls short compared to most grid-scale energy storage technologies. Here’s how it compares:
Efficiency Ranges
- CAES: 25-65%, with most practical systems below 50%.
- Lithium-ion batteries: 70-90%.
- Pumped hydro: 70-85%.
- Flywheel storage: 85-95% (though not specified in sources, widely accepted range).
Key Limitations of CAES
- Thermal losses: Compression heats air, wasting energy unless heat is stored (rarely implemented).
- Fossil dependency: Many CAES plants use natural gas to reheat air before expansion, reducing net efficiency.
- Diabatic vs. adiabatic: Traditional diabatic CAES (with heat loss) achieves 40-52%, while theoretical adiabatic systems (heat recovery) could reach 60-70% but remain experimental.
Efficiency Comparison Table
| Technology | Typical Efficiency | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| CAES | 25-65% | Highly dependent on design |
| Lithium-ion | 70-90% | Most widely deployed |
| Pumped Hydro | 70-85% | Geography-dependent |
| Flow Batteries | 60-80% | Not in sources but industry data |
| Flywheels | 85-95% | Short-duration storage only |
The least efficient CAES configurations (~25-45%) underperform all major storage solutions, while optimized CAES approaches lithium-ion’s lower efficiency range but lacks widespread adoption.
Original article by NenPower, If reposted, please credit the source: https://nenpower.com/blog/how-does-the-efficiency-of-caes-compare-to-other-energy-storage-technologies-2/
