Thermal energy storage (TES) systems demonstrate a wide efficiency range depending on the technology, application, and design. Here’s a comparative analysis:
Efficiency Ranges by Type
- Standard thermal storage: 50–90% efficiency, depending on medium and design (e.g., molten salts or packed-bed systems).
- Advanced thermal systems:
- Radial flow packed-bed TES (KTH): Over 90% efficiency using air and pebble layers, storing heat up to 800°C.
- Thermo-chemical storage (TCS): Up to nearly 100% efficiency in lab settings, though still under development.
- ENERGYNEST ThermalBattery™: Claims >98% efficiency for industrial heat retention, using phase-change materials in concrete.
Comparison to Other Storage Methods
| Storage Method | Efficiency | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lithium-ion | 80–90% | High energy density, fast response | Degradation, cost at grid scale |
| Pumped hydro | 70–85% | Proven, long-duration storage | Geographic constraints |
| Thermal storage | 50–98% | Cost-effective for heat applications | Lower electricity round-trip efficiency* |
| Phase-change PCM | 75–90% | Compact, high energy density | Limited commercial deployment |
*Thermal systems often excel in heat retention efficiency (e.g., 98% for ThermalBattery™), but conversion to electricity via turbines reduces round-trip efficiency to ~50–70%.
Key Differentiators
- Cost: Sensible heat storage (e.g., molten salts) is cheaper than batteries for multi-hour heat applications.
- Scalability: Modular designs like ThermalBattery™ allow seamless industrial integration.
- Longevity: Thermal systems often outlast lithium-ion batteries in heat storage applications.
Advanced TES technologies now rival electrochemical storage in thermal efficiency for direct heat use, though lithium-ion remains superior for short-duration electricity storage.
Original article by NenPower, If reposted, please credit the source: https://nenpower.com/blog/how-does-the-efficiency-of-thermal-energy-storage-systems-compare-to-other-energy-storage-methods/
