Cited by 3,746Power Systems and Renewable EnergyIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationHybrid Renewable Energy Systems

Progress in electrical energy storage system: a critical review

Open access
Chen, Haisheng, Cong, Thang Ngoc, Yang, Wei, Tan, Chunqing, Li, Yongliang, Ding, Yulong·2009·Progress in Natural Science

Abstract

Electrical energy storage technologies for stationary applications are reviewed. Particular attention is paid to pumped hydroelectric storage, compressed air energy storage, battery, flow battery, fuel cell, solar fuel, superconducting magnetic energy storage, flywheel, capacitor/supercapacitor, and thermal energy storage. Comparison is made among these technologies in terms of technical characteristics, applications and deployment status.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The specific investment costs of the total CES system is approximated from 500-3,000 €/kW in literature.

    “The specific investment costs of the total CES system is approximated from 500-3,000 €/kW [6,7,36] in literature.”

    From Exergy-Based and Economic Evaluation of Liquefaction Processes for Cryogenics Energy Storage (2019) · cites this paper as [36]

    The CES row of Table 1, reproduced in the Concluding remarks and perspective section (page not available in our copy), gives a capital cost of $200–300/kW, not €500–3,000/kW. Section 5.4 discusses CES as relatively low-cost but does not give the claimed range. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Liquid air does not require important storage volumes considering its significant energy density compared to that of PHS and CAES.

    “Liquid air does not require important storage volumes considering significant energy density compared to that of PHS and CAES ( Chen et al., 2009 ).”

    From Liquid Air Energy Storage (LAES) as a large-scale storage technology for renewable energy integration – A review of investigation studies and near perspectives of LAES (2020) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2009

    Section 4.10.1 describes liquid air as a cryogenic storage medium and gives cryogenic energy storage a relatively high energy density of 100–200 Wh/kg. Section 5.6 places PHS among the lowest-density systems, supporting that comparison, but groups cryogenic storage and CAES together as medium-density systems. The paper does not establish that liquid air requires less storage volume than CAES. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The high exergy density of CES (120-200 kWh/m3) and the absence of geographical constraints remain the technology's greatest advantage.

    “The high exergy density of CES (120-200 kWh/m 3 [36])-the absence of geographical constraints-remains the technologies greatest advantage.”

    From Exergy-Based and Economic Evaluation of Liquefaction Processes for Cryogenics Energy Storage (2019) · cites this paper as [36]

    Section 4.10.1 (page unavailable) describes CES as having relatively high energy density, but gives 100–200 Wh/kg, not the cited 120–200 kWh/m³ exergy density. The citation is attached to the numerical claim, which this passage does not establish. The passage also does not identify freedom from geographical constraints as CES’s greatest advantage. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Walawalkar R, Apt J, Mancini R. Economics of electric energy storage for energy arbitrage and regulation. Energy Policy 2007;5:2558-68.
  2. Dti Report. Review of electrical energy storage technologies and systems and of their potential for the UK. DG/DTI/00055/00/00, URN NUMBER 04/1876, UK Department of Trade and Industry; 2004, p. 1-34.
  3. Linden S. The commercial world of energy storage: a review of operating facilities (under construction or planned). In: Proceeding of 1st annual conference of the energy storage council, Houston, Texas, March 3, 2003.
  4. Kishimoto K, Hasegawa K, Asano T. Development of generator of liquid air storage energy system. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Technical Review, 1998;35(3):117-20.
  5. Mears D. EPRI-DOE storage handbook-storage for wind resources. In: Annual peer review meeting of DOE energy storage systems research. Washington DC, USA, Nov. 10-11, 2004, p. 1-18.
  6. Jewitt J. Impact of CAES on Wind in Tx, OK and NM, In: Annual peer review meeting of DOE energy storage systems research. San Francisco, USA, Oct. 20, 2005; p. 1-16.
  7. Lazarewicz M, Arseneaux J. Flywheel-based frequency regulation demonstration projects status. In: Proceedings of EESAT conference, San Francisco, USA, Oct. 17-19, 2005, p. 1-22.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, H., Cong, T. N., Yang, W., Tan, C., Li, Y., & Ding, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
Ding, Yulong
Venue
Progress in Natural Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
291-312
ISSN
1002-0071 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017428530
Cited by
3,746
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 148 · 2025: 242 · 2024: 240 · 2023: 297 · 2022: 312 · 2021: 387 · 2020: 361 · 2019: 311 · 2018: 326 · 2017: 293 · 2016: 234 · 2015: 197 · 2014: 155 · 2013: 90 · 2012: 59
FWCI
43.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Progress in Natural Science Materials International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Energy Engineering and Power Technology › Power Systems and Renewable Energy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Integrated Energy Systems Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Energy Engineering and Power Technology › Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Keywords
electrical energy storage, stationary energy storage, pumped storage, compressed air energy storage, batteries, flow batteries, fuel cells, solar fuels, superconducting magnetic energy storage, flywheel energy storage, supercapacitors, thermal energy storage, technology comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review