Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Comprehensive comparison on the ecological performance and T

environmental sustainability of three energy storage systems employed for a
wind farm by using an emergy analysis
⁎
Shima Yazdania, Mahdi Deymi-Dashtebayaza, , Erfan Salimipourb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Quchan University of Technology, Quchan, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to the environmental and economic circumstances, the use of renewable-energy increases every year. The
Emergy analysis uncertainty, volatility, and difficulty of storing energy in the large scales are obstacles to the more penetration of
Wind farm renewable energies in the market. Energy storage systems can be used as a solution to store energy at a time
Compressed air energy storage when energy consumption is lower than the generated energy or at a time when more energy is generated
Liquid air energy storage
compared to what is demanded. In this paper, a comparison study has been conducted on the three energy
Hydrogen energy storage
storage systems that proportionated for a typical wind power plant with the capacity of 109 MW. The energy
storage systems which are investigated in the current study, include a compressed air energy storage, a liquid air
energy storage, and a hydrogen energy storage. For this purpose, the power generated from the wind farm, for
eight hours (at peak-off times) is considered as an input for the energy storage systems. To explore various
factors such as the environmental impact, economic efficiency, sustainability and renewability, a new method
based on emergy analysis is employed. The results showed that the transformity of electricity from hydrogen
energy storage was much inferior to that of electricity from the compressed air energy storage and liquid air
energy storage. This means that the above-mentioned system utilized the lowest emergy to produce a unit of
electricity. Emergy yield ratio of hydrogen energy storage power was 1.98. In fact, it was lower than the emergy
yield ratio of compressed air energy storage (2.62) and liquid air energy storage (2.92). This finding proved that
liquid air energy storage was more efficient at utilizing local resources. Environmental load ratio of hydrogen
energy storage (1.02) was much higher than those of compressed air energy storage (0.62) and liquid air energy
storage (0.52). Liquid air energy storage had an emergy sustainability index of 5.6, which was preferable
compared to two other cases. It also had better ecological performance and environmental sustainability.

1. Introduction mechanical, electrical, electrochemical systems, and hydrogen storage

[2]. Some of the mechanical types such as pumped hydroelectric and
In recent years, the share of the total installed capacity covered by compressed air energy systems have geographical limitations [3]. Many
intermittent renewable-energy sources (RESs), in particular of wind challenges have been presented in the traditional ESSs with regard to
power for electricity generation has considerably increased due to en- the increase in renewable electricity utilizations [4].
vironmental conditions (when there is a need to reduce greenhouse-gas In CAES system, by consuming the electricity, the air is compressed.
emissions) as well as economic circumstances. Wind power is presented The compressed air is stored in a steel pressure vessel for above-ground
as a very clean and sustainable energy source because of its reliance on storage [5], or in a salt cavern (large scale) for below-ground storage
the wind resource for a portion of the input, does not require any fuel, [6]. Then, the air is heated up by burning the conventional fuel before
and consequently does not cause environmental pollution [1]. Besides deriving a turbine/generator unit. For adiabatic CAES, the heat gen-
the benefits of RESs, there are some problems such as the unpredict- erated during the air compression stage is stored in a thermal energy
ability and instability of RESs productions, which make the energy storage unit in order to heat up the air in the discharge process [7]. A
storage systems (ESSs) be the essential systems. Based on the energy much higher efficiency is achieved in stored adiabatic CAES compared
conversion mode the ESSs can be classified as several types including to diabatic CAES. In fact, in adiabatic CAES the efficiency of the overall

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.deimi@hsu.ac.ir (M. Deymi-Dashtebayaz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.021
Received 29 November 2018; Received in revised form 21 March 2019; Accepted 5 April 2019
Available online 09 April 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Nomenclature EYR Emergy Yield Ratio

ELR Environmental Load Ratio
RESs Renewable Energy Sources ESI Emergy Sustainability Index
EmA Emergy Analysis R Renewable Environmental Resources
ESS Energy Storage System N Non-Renewable Environmental Resources
ESSs Energy Storage Systems RP Renewable Purchased Inputs
CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage NP Non-Renewable Purchased Inputs
LAES Liquid Air Energy Storage PR Percent Renewable
HES Hydrogen Energy Storage W Power (kW)
Tr Transformity

process can be increased by around 20% [8]. Liu and Wang [9] con- ranging from 0 °C to 250 °C, the payback period could differ from
ducted thermodynamic analyses including the energy analysis and ex- 25.7 years to 5.6 years. Borri et al. [20] proposed a liquefaction cycle
ergy analysis to study a conventional adiabatic CAES and a proposed for a microgrid scale LAES. They indicated that by using a pressurized
modified adiabatic CAES. In the modified proposed system the total phase separator, the specific consumption was reduced from 700 kW h/
exergy efficiency was improved by about 3%. A review paper on the t to 532 kW h/t.
different types of CAES was conducted by Kim et al. [10], in which the The ESS that generated hydrogen by using an electrolyzer device
authors carried out energy and exergy analyses in order to explore an and stored “excess” generated electricity from RESs was defined as
adiabatic CAES, an isothermal CAES, a micro-CAES combined with air- hydrogen energy storage (HES) or power to gas (P2G) [21]. By passing
cycle heating and cooling, and a constant-pressure CAES system com- the electric current through electrolysis, water (H2O) was split into
bined with a pumped hydro storage. A review study on the develop- oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) [22]. The hydrogen was compressed
ment of CAES technology was also conducted by Wang et al. [11]. They and stored in a pressurized tank [23]. Through the use of a fuel cell or
investigated some parameters such as economic efficiency, sustain- via combustion process, the stored hydrogen could be converted back to
ability, and thermodynamic characteristics of the ESSs. Their results the heat or electricity either with or without the natural gas [24]. Be-
demonstrated that CAES had great potential to become a key part of the sides the water electrolyzer device, there are various methods to pro-
future smart energy network. Caralis et al. [12] performed a review on duce hydrogen. A review study was conducted by Zhang et al. [25] to
several ESSs. Their results demonstrated that the levelized cost of CAES evaluate the produced hydrogen in various ways. Garmsiri et al. [26]
was 20% and 50% lower than pumped hydro storage and batteries, carried out an economic analysis to achieve the overall capital and
respectively. Furthermore, Fertig and Apt [13] carried out an en- operating costs of the power to gas (P2G) system implemented for the
gineering-economic analysis on a wind/CAES system. Their result re- wind farms that were located in Canada. Their result demonstrated that
vealed that CAES paired with wind had social benefits such as improved for the 100-MW wind farm, P2G seems to be more proficient. Safari and
air quality during peak times and increased economic surplus. Dincer [27] performed a thermodynamic analysis of a novel P2G system
Among the mechanical storage systems, cryogenic energy storage for methane and hydrogen production based on the wind energy.
(CES), especially liquid air energy storage system (LAES) is geo- As described in the earlier, more previous approaches to investigate
graphically unlimited and can be used to develop technologies such as the ESSs were based the thermodynamic analysis and the economic
the gas liquefaction. In LAES system, the excess electricity is stored in a analysis. Given the ever-increasing trend of using the renewable energy
cryogenic fluid in liquid phase and the volume of the storage tank is due to their uncertainty and volatility in their production, the use of
significantly diminished compared to the more conventional CAES ESSs is very important. Due to these reasons nowadays, new methods
[14]. Kim et al. [15] conducted a comprehensive thermodynamic and are being proposed for the analysis of ESSs [28,29]. Each of these ESSs
economical study on a proposed LAES. They suggested that the elec- has various inputs, costs, and environmental impacts, therefore the
tricity can be used at off-peak times to liquefy the air and can be product of them has different sustainability. Utilizing a method with a
combined with liquefied natural gas at the on-peak time before being capability to consider the environment impacts and sustainability of the
burned in turbines. Their result showed that, depending on the sizes ESSs as well as the thermodynamic and economic efficiency of them is
and the storage time, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) ranged from interesting.
142.5 to 190.0 $/MWh. In addition, they made a comparison between Emergy evaluation can be carried out for this purpose. Emergy that
the proposed system, the diabatic CAES systems, and the adiabatic was proposed by Odum [30] is defined as the available solar energy
LAES system. The results demonstrated that the proposed system in that has previously been used either directly or indirectly to present an
compare of two other ESSs had better storage and round-trip effi- appropriate product or provide a service [31]. The emergy analysis
ciencies. Also, by regarding the environmental impacts of the CAES (EmA) is based on the principles of thermodynamics [32], provides
system, the proposed system was an economic and feasible choice. more comprehensive and quantitative information for making en-
Kantharaj et al. [16] proposed a hybrid ESS including CAES and LAES vironment-related decisions compared to the life-cycle analysis method,
and performed thermodynamic analyses to evaluate the proposed exergy analysis, and entropy analysis [33]. A visible illustration of the
system. According to their assumptions, the proposed system was more process can be prepared by exergy analysis, while EmA is utilizable to
economical than LAES and more economical than CAES. A thermo- comprehensively find out the exergy view, and also the relation be-
dynamic analysis of a LAES was carried out by Guizzi et al. [17]. This tween process and environment load. The authors discerned that by
study was indicated that the round-trip efficiency of LAES was in- using both analyses for an identical case study, the two methods
creased by storing the heat that was released during the air liquefaction mentioned above are supplementary rather than competitive [34].
process (similar to an adiabatic CAES system). Qing et al. [18] per- Bastianoni et al. [35] considered the similarity of emergy and exergy.
formed thermodynamic analyses to evaluate and optimize the main They argued that emergy and exergy can be related to each other by an
components of LAES. Their results illustrated that enhancing the adia- exergetic equivalent of solar energy (≈0.93). In EmA, there are some
batic efficiency of the main components can decrease their exergy loss. emergy indices such as the percent renewable (PR), emergy yield ratio
Xie et al. [19] suggested that the profitability of LAES can be enhanced (EYR), environmental loading ratio (ELR), and emergy sustainability
by using the waste heat into the system or extending the scale of the index (ESI). Also, in research studies according to the need, new indices
system. Their result showed, for a 200 MW system by using waste heat based on emergy can be presented [36]. Different systems can be

2
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

evaluated and compared by computing these indices [37]. Recently, the cycle assessment based on exergetic approaches. In a paper, the emergy
emergy method has widely been used in evaluating the sustainability of theory was applied to evaluate the manufacturing systems to achieve
various sectors such as construction [38], industry [39], agriculture sustainable manufacturing [43]. Also, EmA was used to assess the en-
[40], and modern renewable systems [41]. vironmental impact of different energy options by Luo et al. [44]. An-
Due to the limitations of non-renewable resources, as well as the other EmA was conducted by Yang and Chen [45] to evaluate the re-
difference in the amount of energy consumed by the environment to newability, economic efficiency, and sustainability of a typical wind
create these resources, it is required to obtain the sustainability of the farm.
output energy that is generated from the different ways. EmA has the As was mentioned in the previous studies, the ESSs were evaluated
ability to evaluate sustainability and compare different ways to achieve by using the thermodynamic and economic analyses. To the best
a product. Regarding the effectiveness of this method, several studies knowledge of the authors, no comparative study has been conducted to
have been used EmA to compare the products. For instance, several of evaluate the ESSs by utilizing the emergy method. The limitations of the
these studies were here described. Aghbashlo and Rosen [42] per- previous methods are as follows:
formed an emergy analysis to evaluate a well-known gas turbine-based
cogeneration system. They concluded that the emergy analysis link • It was observed no method that has the capability to simultaneously
thermodynamic, financial, and ecological aspects of energy systems and compute all the thermodynamic and economic analyses altogether
help understand better the process compare with monetary and life as well as considering the environmental impacts and with an

Fig. 1. Structure of the emergy analysis steps.

3
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

equivalent unit. the exergy analyses and the transformities of the inputs were explored
• In addition, the aforesaid analyses couldn't detect the difference from the previous relative studies. After that, the emergy analyses for
between the uses of renewable or nonrenewable resources as the the wind farm and ESSs were performed. In the last step, by calculating
input. Consequently, those methods unable to obtain the sustain- the emergy indices, the most proper ESS was determined.
ability of the outputs.

However, using EmA can help fill the existing gap. EmA has an 2.1. Emergy evaluation procedure
ability to consider all the inputs by converting and measuring all units
based on the solar equivalent unit. In this paper, EmA was utilized in Emergy is defined as the available solar energy that has previously
order to evaluate the sustainability of three ESSs and assist the decision- been used either directly or indirectly to present an appropriate product
maker to opt the most sustainable ESS. The ESSs investigated in the or provide a service [31]. The emergy evaluation procedure started
current study included CAES, LAES, and HES. For this purpose, Manjil with the overview diagramming to identify the sources and pathways in
wind farm as a typical wind farm case was investigated to explore the the interactive networks of a system [46]. Diagrams were constructed of
implementation of the ESSs and compare the turnover of each ESS. The special emergy language symbols invented by Odum [47]. After
Manjil wind farm generates 109 MW electricity. The electricity pro- drawing the emergy diagram of a system, the EmA table was organized.
duced for eight hours (off-peak times) was considered as the input Then, then the emergy indices and ratios were determined. By using the
power for the ESSs. At stage one, the EmA of the wind farm was con- EmA, all the renewable, non-renewable, and purchased inputs to a
ducted to calculate the transformity of the electricity generated in the system that were required to produce a product or service, as a unit of
wind farm. Then, the obtained data of the electricity output from the solar-energy equivalents were considered. Consequently, various kinds
wind farm has been used for the CAES, LAES, and HES. After the EmA of of energy inputs to distinct systems could be compared. In this method,
these ESSs, the emergy-based indices, including the transformity, per- some indices that are useful for analyzing and comparing various sys-
cent renewable, emergy yields ratio, environmental loading ratio, and tems are calculated by utilizing the product yields and emergy inputs
emergy sustainability indexes were compared to evaluate the perfor- [48]. Emergy diagrams of the wind power plant and the ESSs are shown
mance and environmental sustainability of those ESSs. in Fig. 2. These diagrams include all of the renewable, non-renewable,
and purchased inputs and processes that led to the production of
2. Theoretical method electricity. At the off-peak times (for eight hours), the electricity output
of the wind farm was considered. This output was separately consumed
The theoretical processes performed in this study are based on a at the three different ESSs in order to generate the electricity at the on-
flowchart as shown in Fig. 1. In the first step, to have a visual de- peak times.
scription of the whole objective, emergy diagrams of the wind farm and
the ESSs were prepared. In the next step, the required information of

CAES
Equipments

Compressor
Electricity
Air Power plant
Compressed
Building air
Equipments Labor
materials

LAES Equipments

$
Cold
Compressor
expanders Electricity
Construction Air
Electricity
Wind Wind plant Liquid Power plant
Operation air
and
maintenance
HES

Equipments

Elecrolyzer Hydrogen
Electricity
Water

Oxygen
Oxygen Power plant

Fig. 2. Emergy diagram of the wind farm and energy storage systems.

4
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

2.2. Emergy ratios and indices located in Manjil in Guilan province, Iran. Manjil city is located be-
tween N 36° 43′ 11.9″ latitude and E 49° 25′ 12″ longitude. Manjil is
Emergy indicators were used to evaluate the eco-technological one of the windiest regions in Iran with a high capacity for producing
processes and the whole economy. There existed three essential in- the wind energy. The averages of the wind speed in the Manjil areas are
dicators that were utilized to analyze and compare each production 15 m/s for 3700 h/year and 13 m/s for 3400 h/year, respectively. The
process. These indicators were defined as follows: area of the wind farm is around4.5 × 106m2 . It is comprised of 109 wind
turbines with different generation capacities, a hub height of 68 m, and
1) Emergy yields ratio (EYR): It is defined as: a blade diameter of 64 m (the total height 100 m). The total electricity
Y generation capacity of this wind farm is 109 MW [56].
EYR = Because of the unpredictable production from the wind farms, im-
NP + RP (1)
plementing an energy storage system is an essential work. Using the ESS
where NP is the purchased nonrenewable emergy, RP is the purchased for a wind farm with the capacity of around 100 MWe, which provides
renewable emergy, and Y is the yield emergy ratio. This ratio was used the electricity of a region, is very important especially at the times
to measure the capability of production processes to exploit the local when the wind speed becomes low or at the on-peak in which the re-
resources [49]. This indicator also showed how much the gross emergy quired electricity becomes more than electricity generated in wind
was required in support of its production [50]. A higher value of this farm. In this study, three different ESSs were implemented to identify
ratio indicates a greater return obtained from each unit of emergy that what kind of the investigated ESSs is proper for using at the wind farm
was invested [51]. with a scale of around 100 MWe. The investigated ESSs concluded of an
adiabatic CAES, LAES and HES. Fig. 3 shows a schematic of CAES. As
2) Environmental loading ratio (ELR): It is defined as: can be seen, the off-peak electricity and ambient air were consumed to
NR + NP compress and store the air. Then, at the on-peak, when the grid re-
ELR = quired more electricity, the air was used to produce power.
R + RP (2)
Fig. 4 shows a schematic of LAES. The off-peak electricity and the
where NR and R are defined as free nonrenewable emergy and free ambient air were consumed to compress and store the liquid air. Then,
renewable emergy, respectively. This ratio reflects the pressure of at the on-peak, when the grid required more electricity, the liquid air
production activities on the local ecosystem due to the excess ex- was used to produce power.
ploitation of the local non-renewable resources and/or investment from Hydrogen energy storage was another ESS that was investigated in
the outside, compared with the renewable resources [52]. The higher this study. Fig. 5 shows a schematic of HES. The off-peak electricity was
ratio of this index means that the system has the negative impacts and produced by the electrolysis equipment that could transform the water
environmental pressure. It should be pointed out that the EYR evaluates into the hydrogen. Then, the hydrogen was stored by a tank. At the on-
the purchased-local emergy flow balance, while the ELR is sensitive to peak, the stored hydrogen (H2) was used to produce the electricity as
the renewable-nonrenewable flows balance [49]. the fuel that gas-turbine generator demanded.

3) Emergy sustainability index (ESI):

4. Results
EYR
ESI =
ELR (3) This section includes three subsections. The first part of the emergy
The ESI is a ratio between the EYR and the ELR [53]. It measures the analysis was to prepare the tables. After the calculations for preparing
net benefit to the society, the pressure on the local environment, and the tables, by drawing the emergy signature diagrams a visual de-
the ecological sustainability of the production activity [54]. When scription of the corresponding emergy inputs from different energy
ESI < 1, the production system is not sustainable; and when sources was provided. In the final part, by emergy-based indicators, a
1 < ESI < 5, it means that the system is moving toward more sus- comparison was made between the ESSs that were studied in the pre-
tainable direction. Furthermore, when ESI > 5, the system has greatly sent study.
achieved its sustainability [55].
4.1. Emergy analysis
3. Description of the case study and energy storage systems
The next step after drawing the diagram, was to prepare the emergy
The wind farm, which was investigated in the current study, is tables. These tables included all inputs that could provide the outputs.

Ambient air

Compressor Storage tank

Off peak
electricity

Turbine
Heat storage

Fig. 3. The schematic diagram of CAES.

5
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Cold gas
Ambient air

Chiller Expander Separator

Compressor

Off peak
electricity Liquid air Turbine
storage tank

Fig. 4. The schematic diagram of LAES.

These tables also consisted of the material as well as the cost of in- the Ref. [13] was utilized to estimate the cost of investments and
vestments and plant construction, operation and maintenance, services, equipment of CAES. Table 2 consists of the emergy computations of
and human works. The units of every flow in the table were multiplied CAES. Indeed, the total input emergy in CAES was 5.68E+21(seJ). It
by the corresponding transformities to convert them into the solar means that this input emergy was 3.5 times more than the electricity
emergy. The amount of emergy needed for each unit of the product was output from the wind farm. Also, the transformity of electricity output
transformity that was calculated from the total emergy (the sum of the from CAES was equal to 3.71E+5(seJ/J). However, the transformity of
emergy of all inputs) divided by the quantity of energy provided. The wind farm output was 3.04E+04(seJ/J). Therefore, to produce a unit of
transformity was also used to compare the different production systems electricity in CAES, 12.2 times more emergy was consumed compared
that generated the same product. This helped to choose a better alter- to the wind farm. But it is essential to note that this energy storage was
native. utilized at off-peak and the electricity output from wind farm would be
At first, the emergy of the electricity generation in the wind farm wasted without it.
was calculated. Table 1 consists of the emergy computations of the wind The density and volumetric energy density of the liquid nitrogen
farm. The analysis was carried out for 20 years lifetime. The informa- that were stored in the tank were considered as 806 kg/m3 and 50 kWh/
tion of the Ref. [57] was utilized to assess the details of the wind farm m3, respectively [60]. According to the results of Ref. [60], the volu-
such as the type of turbines, the capital and equipment cost, and the metric energy density and the overall efficiency of LAES are about 10
land details. The inputs comprised of the wind as a renewable source. times and amounts 13% more than CAES. The information of Ref. [15]
These inputs also involved all materials as well as the cost of capital, was utilized to estimate the cost of investments and equipment of the
operation and maintenance, and labors work. By calculating the LAES. Table 3 consists of the emergy computations of LAES. The total
amount of electricity output during the 20 years and the total emergy of input emergy in LAES was 5.34E+21 (seJ). In fact, it was approxi-
inputs, the transformity of electricity production in the wind farm was mately close to the value of the emergy of electricity output from CAES.
determined. The result revealed that the transformity of electricity The transformity of electricity output from LAES was also equal to
output was equal to 3.04E+04. Also, it was shown that 23% of the 3.09E+05 (seJ/J).
renewable sources and 77% of the nonrenewable sources were used to The Refs. [26,61] were used to estimate the cost of the electrolyzer,
produce the electricity in this wind farm. These amounts were obtained HES investments, size of the storage capacity, and the amount of water
by summing all the renewable and all the nonrenewable of the inputs and electricity demand to produce a unit of the hydrogen. The best
and by dividing them into the total input emergy. The large portion of existing processes for the water electrolysis had an electrical efficiency
the nonrenewable inputs was because of the high investment and ca- of 70–80% [62] so that producing one kg of the hydrogen (which had
pital cost of the wind farm. Then, the emergy data of electricity output the specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg) required
was utilized for the next sections, because this electricity was con- 50–55 kWh of the electricity [63]. Table 4 consists of the emergy
sidered as an input for the ESSs that were explored. computations of HES. In fact, the total input emergy in HES was 2.89E
The adiabatic CAES system for the production of one kWh output +21 (seJ), and its transformity was equal to 1.61E+05 (seJ/J). These
hinted at the demand for 1.5 kWh electricity [10]. The information of amounts were lower than the amounts observed in two other ESSs.

O2 H2 Hydrogen
storage

Turbine

Off peak
electricity Water Electrolyzer
Fig. 5. The schematic diagram of HES.

6
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Table 1
Emergy analysis of the Manjil wind farm during 20 years lifetime.
Note Classification Item Materials Raw amount Unit Solar transformity (seJ/ Ref. of Solar emergy
unit) transformity (seJ)

Local resources
1 100%R Wind 1.90E+17 J 2.45E+03 [46] 4.65E+20
2 100%N Land loss 3.36E+05 m2/Year 8.00E+10 [46] 2.69E+16

Wind turbines
3 100%NP Rotor Resin and fiber 1.20E+03 t 8.07E+15 [45] 9.68E+18
glass
Cast iron 8.61E+02 t 3.23E+15 [45] 2.78E+18
4 100%NP Nacelle Iron 2.19E+03 t 3.23E+15 [45] 7.08E+18
Steel 2.56E+03 t 3.23E+15 [45] 8.27E+18
Silica 4.36E+01 t 5.05E+15 [45] 2.20E+17
Copper 4.14E+02 t 1.01E+16 [45] 4.18E+18
Resin and fiber 2.40E+02 t 8.07E+15 [45] 1.94E+18
glass
5 100%NP Tower Steel 9.58E+03 t 3.23E+15 [45] 3.09E+19

Substation
6 100%NP Dry transformer Silica 6.00E−01 t 5.05E+15 [45] 3.03E+15
Steel 1.08E+01 t 3.23E+15 [45] 3.49E+16
Copper 4.80E+00 t 1.01E+16 [45] 4.85E+16
7 100%NP Control system Computer 2.20E+01 5.77E+14 [45] 1.27E+16
8 Equipment 8.90E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 5.22E+20
investment

Building works
9 Capital investment 1.80E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.06E+20
10 100%NP Tower foundation Concrete 3.78E+04 m3 3.03E+14 [58] 1.15E+19
Steel bar 4.51E+03 t 4.82E+15 [58] 2.17E+19

Operation and maintenance

11 100%NP Machine oil Lubricant 2.67E+03 t 4.14E+18 [45] 2.07E+17
12 100%NP Blade substitution Resin and fiber 7.85E+03 t 6.33E+19 [45] 3.17E+18
glass
13 100%NP Generator Silicon 6.54E+01 t 3.30E+17 [45] 1.65E+16
substitution
Copper 1.58E+02 t 1.60E+18 [45] 8.00E+16
Steel 1.50E+03 t 4.86E+18 [45] 2.43E+17

Labor and services

14 100%NP Labor 3.43E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 2.01E+20
15 100%NP Cost of land 3.73E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 2.19E+20
occupation

Electricity production
16 Y Lifetime yield Electricity 6.78E+16 J
Total emergy 23%R,77%N seJ 2.06E+21
Transformity of wind seJ/J 3.04E+04 This study
electricity

Table 2
Emergy analysis of the CAES during 20 years lifetime.
Note Classification Item Raw amount Unit Solar transformity (seJ/unit) Ref. of transformity Solar emergy (seJ)

1 23%R,77%N Electricity 2.27E+16 J 3.04E+04 This study 6.90E+20

2 100%R Air 6.50E+13 g 5.16E+07 [59] 3.35E+21
3 100%NP Compressor 5.67E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 3.33E+20
4 100%NP Heat exchangers 2.73E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.60E+20
5 100%NP Plant cost excluding storage 1.22E+08 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 7.14E+20
6 100%NP Storage cost 1.31E+06 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 7.68E+18
7 100%NP Insulated tank 5.40E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 3.17E+18
8 100%NP Fixed O&M 5.45E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 3.20E+18
9 100%NP Periodic maintenance 4.91E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 2.88E+20
10 100%NP Variable O&M 2.20E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.29E+20
Total emergy 5.68E+21
Y Electricity 4.24E+09 kWh 1.34E+12 This study
1.53E+16 J 3.71E+5 This study

4.2. Emergy signature diagrams output electricity in the wind farm. The only renewable input of this
system was the wind. But as can be seen, it constituted a significant
Emergy signature diagrams were prepared for the inputs of this portion of the total inputs. Figs. 7 and 8 show the emergy inputs of
study. The signature diagrams display a visual description of the cor- CAES and LAES, respectively. The air and one-third of the electricity
responding emergy inputs from the different energy sources. Fig. 6 were the renewable inputs of these systems. Fig. 9 shows all the emergy
shows all of the emergy inputs that were consumed to produce the inputs of HES. The water and one third of the electricity were the

7
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Table 3
Emergy analysis of the LAES during 20 years lifetime.
Note Classification Item Raw amount Unit Solar transformity (seJ/unit) Ref. of transformity Solar emergy (seJ)

1 23%R,77%N Electricity 2.27E+16 J 3.04E+04 This study 6.90E+20

2 100%R Air 6.50E+13 g 5.16E+07 [59] 3.35E+21
3 100%NP Compressor 5.19E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 3.05E+20
4 100%NP Heat exchangers 2.73E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.60E+20
5 100%NP Separator 8.09E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 4.75E+18
6 100%NP Plant cost excluding storage 6.67E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 3.92E+20
7 100%NP Storage cost 1.31E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 7.69E+19
8 100%NP Insulated tank 1.08E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 6.34E+19
9 100%NP Cryogenic pumps 7.34E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 4.31E+18
10 100%NP Fixed O&M 9.81E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 5.76E+18
11 100%NP Periodic maintenance 2.94E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.73E+20
12 Variable O&M 1.96E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.15E+20
Total emergy 5.34E+21
Y Electricity 4.79E+09 kWh 1.11E+12 This study
1.73E+16 J 3.09E+05 This study

renewable inputs. Also, other inputs were the non-renewable resources.

The total emergy of nonrenewable sources of HES was much lower than
the total emergy of nonrenewable sources of two other ones. The sig-
nificant difference between the ESS diagrams was due to the renewable
input source, which included air for CAES and LAES. But for the HES,
the renewable input source was water. The transformity of air was a
hundred times more than the water [59].

4.3. Emergy-based indicators

Transformity is the ratio of total emergy needed to produce one unit

of a product. It is a beneficial indicator for appraising the emergy ef-
ficiency of a product. The transformity values of electricity output from
the wind farm, CAES, LAES, and HES were 3.04E+04, 3.71E+05,
3.09E+05, and 1.61E+05, respectively. These results indicated that
the emergy efficiency of electricity production from the ESSs was lower
than that of the output from the wind farm, and the emergy efficiency
was reduced. However, the excess electricity of the wind farm was
wasted. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the ESS output electricity is
Fig. 6. The emergy signature diagram of the Manjil wind farm inputs.
not a valuable form of electricity production. With regard to the above-
mentioned assumptions in this study, it can be inferred that between
the investigated ESSs, the transformity of electricity production from and LAES (2.92). The ELR of HES (1.02) is much higher than those of
HES was 56.6% and 47.9% lower than that of the CAES and LAES, CAES (0.62) and LAES (0.52). The ESI of CAES, LAES, and HES were
respectively. This means that the emergy efficiency of electricity pro- 4.25, 5.6, and 1.95, respectively. So, LAES had the best sustainability. It
duction from the HES was higher than that of CAES and LAES. should be noted that these measures were obtained by considering the
By comparing the emergy ratios and indices of the three ESSs, the same amount of input electricity that was terminated to produce the
performance and sustainability of each system can be assessed. The different amounts of outputs from each of the ESSs. Therefore, by
emergy indices for these ESSs are listed in the Table 5. The EYR of HES generating the same amount of output electricity, these indices might
power is 1.98. In fact, it is lower than the emergy indices of CAES (2.62) become different.

Table 4
Emergy analysis of the HES during 20 year lifetime.
Note Classification Item Raw amount Unit Solar transformity (seJ/unit) Ref. of transformity Solar emergy (seJ)

1 23%R,77%N Electricity 2.27E+16 J 3.04E+04 This study 6.90E+20

2 100%R Water 6.28E+15 g 2.03E+05 [59] 1.27E+21
3 100%NP Electrolysis system 4.36E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 2.56E+20
4 100%NP Power module 6.13E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 3.60E+18
5 100%NP Capital cost 2.20E+08 € 2.22E+12 [64] 4.88E+20
6 100%NP Hydrogen storage tank 2.13E+07 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.25E+20
7 100%NP Hydrogen dispenser 1.90E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.12E+18
8 100%NP Electrolyzer maintenance 2.52E+05 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 1.48E+18
9 100%NP Storage system maintenance 3.78E+06 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 2.22E+19
10 100%NP Water management system maintenance 4.63E+06 $ 5.87E+12 [58] 2.72E+19
Total emergy 2.89E+21
11 Y1 Hydrogen 1.26E+11 g 2.29E+10 This study
12 Y2 Oxygen 1.10E+12 g
Hydrogen with specific energy 40 kWh/kg 5.04E+09 kWh 5.73E+11 This study
Hydrogen with specific energy 143 MJ/kg 1.80E+16 J 1.61E+05 This study

8
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Table 5
Emergy indicators for the electricity output from three energy storage systems.
Item The amount of Transformity PR% EYR ELR ESI
elctricity generated (seJ/J)
(J)

Wind farm 6.78E+16 3.04E+04 23% 1.29 3.44 0.38

CAES 1.53E+16 3.71E+5 61.74 2.62 0.62 4.25
LAES 1.73E+16 3.09E+5 65.66 2.92 0.52 5.60
HES 1.80E+16 1.61E+05 49.61 1.98 1.02 1.95

Table 6
Economic comparison of three energy storage systems based on the total money
emergy.
Unit CAES LAES HES

Total of money emergy seJ 1.64E+21 1.30E+21 9.25E+20

Total of electricity output J 1.53E+16 1.73E+16 1.80E+16
Cost transformity seJ/J 1.07E+05 7.52E+04 5.14E+04

Fig. 7. The emergy signature diagram of the CAES inputs.

Table 7
Emergy evaluation indices of the Manjil wind farm and the three EESs, com-
pared to several other energy power plants.
Item Reference Transformity (seJ/J) EYR ELR ESI

Wind This study 3.04E+04 1.29 3.44 0.38

CAES This study 3.71E+05 2.62 0.62 4.25
LAES This study 3.09E+05 2.92 0.52 5.6
HES This study 1.61E+05 1.98 1.02 1.95
wind [45] 4.49E+04 1.17 5.84 0.2
wind [70] 1.74E+04 1.25 4 0.31
Biomass (CHP) [71] 8.17E+04 2.63 0.62 4.27
Coal (CHP) [71] 2.72E+05 2.67 10.32 0.26

Furthermore, a survey was conducted to compare the economic

efficiency of the systems based on the EmA. In that way, the emergy of
all the money spent on reaching the output product has been summed
up to reach the total cost emergy. By dividing the sum of this emergy by
the amount of electricity output from each system, its cost transformity
is achieved. As shown in Table 6, the cost transformity of HES was
lower than two other ESSs, so that the amount of CAES and LAES
transformity was about 2 and 1.5 times higher than the HES, respec-
Fig. 8. The emergy signature diagram of the LAES inputs.
tively. Given that the transformity represents emergy efficiency, the
HES had higher emergy efficiency than other systems. In other words,
in order to produce a Joule unit of electricity, the HES was required less
emergy.

5. Discussions

In the previous studies might, a system was suitable for instance in

the case of economic analysis but its information about the thermo-
dynamic efficiency or environmental sustainability wasn't available.
The following results have been obtained from the previous studies that
evaluated and compared the ESSs:

1) For the large scale power plant, CAES is a favorable option. The
conventional CAES compare to the adiabatic CAES is produced more
annual electricity with the lower total capital cost. Nevertheless, the
adiabatic CAES doesn't use fossil fuels that consequently, it isn’t led
to the dangerous effects on the environment [12].
2) LAES doesn't need the high-pressure storage tank [18]. It hasn’t the
geography and environment limitation [65]. Also, it has a high
energy storage density and its displacement is easy [66].
Fig. 9. The emergy signature diagram of the HES inputs. 3) According to this fact that LAES is a modern ESS, has the ability to
progress. In this regard, a few studies had been conducted in this
field to enhance economic feasibility [16,19] and thermodynamic

9
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

efficiency [20,67]. purity oxygen that was produced in the electrolyzer could be stored as a
4) Kim et al. [15] by utilizing the thermodynamic and economic ana- precious by-product. Thus, for the origins that required more electricity
lyses conducted a comparative study between an adiabatic CAES than what can be achieved by using LAES, utilizing HES could be an
and a traditional LAES. Their results demonstrated that energy ef- appropriate ESS. But, its sustainability was obtained lower than that of
ficiency and the sustainability of LAES were more than CAES. LAES and CAES. However, the ESI of HES was achieved more than one
5) Using water electrolysis to produce hydrogen is a sustainable and in the previous studies, it was proved that the system with the
method particularly when applying renewable electricity [25]. ESI > 1 is moving toward a more sustainable direction.
6) Also, the produced hydrogen could be added into the natural gas
grid to enhance the gas heating value [68]. 6. Conclusion
7) Besides the benefit of HES for power system stabilization, it has
economic profits in the result of surplus hydrogen and oxygen One of the most promising solutions to the challenges related to
production [69]. wind integration is energy storage systems. In this paper, the power
generated in a typical wind farm for eight hours (in peak-off) was
Those studies individually focused on the environmental sustain- considered as an input to three different ESSs, including CAES, LAES,
ability, exergy, and economic performance of the ESSs, therefore it is and HES. The EmA was used to evaluate these ESSs. This method had an
difficult to choose a better ESS. ability to simultaneously consider the thermodynamic and economic
EmA has the ability to assess all resources, goods, and services under analysis as well as the environmental impacts. Therefore this method
a single unit (solar equivalent joules). By using this method, it is pos- could fill the gap of the previous thermodynamic or economic studies.
sible to evaluate the energy, matter, economic, and environmental ef- Transformity was a major parameter in the emergy analysis method.
fects as an equal term. This method can fill the gap in the existing lit- The greater transformities to generate the same amount of product
erature. In other words, EmA can consider all of the energy, exergy, required more emergy. The transformity of electricity from HES was
economic and environmental effects altogether, which help to de- much lower than electricity from CAES and LAES. The transformity of
termine the kind of the more sustainable system. EmA is an interesting air was one hundred times the water, and the total cost per year of the
method to perform a sustainability assessment of the systems [37]. CAES and LAES were higher than HES, which caused the higher
In the present study, three ESSs have been evaluated and compared transformity of electricity from CAES and LAES compared to HES. This
by using EmA. For this purpose, at first the exergy and economic ana- means that the HES power was much more efficient and demanded less
lysis of the previous studies were used for EmA computations. At the emergy input from the environment and society compared to CAES and
next step, the transformity of resources, materials, and payments were LAES. However, the high transformity of renewable input of CAES and
explored through the lens of the relevant studies. Finally, by using the LAES (transformity of air) helped to obtain very sustainable output
extracted information, the computations of emergy analysis were con- electricity with a high percent of renewability. The EYR of HES power
ducted. Therefore, EmA is complementary to the exergy and economic was equal to 1.98. In fact, it was less than those of CAES (2.62) and
analysis [29]. LAES (2.92). This proved that LAES was more efficient at utilizing the
The result revealed that HES had the lowest transformity value. local resources. Moreover, the ELR of HES (1.02) was much higher than
Also, it was shown that this system would generate 17.6% and 5% more those of CAES (0.62) and LAES (0.52). In addition, LAES had an ESI of
electricity than CAES and LAES, respectively. The highest EYR was 5.6, which was higher than ESI of two other cases. Therefore, LAES had
achieved by using LAES, which proves that LAES is more efficient at the best ecological performance and environmental sustainability. In
utilizing the local resources. The ELR helps to yield a complete eva- order to summarize the results of this paper, based on the EmA and
luation and estimate the potential environmental impact of a system. through the consideration of environmental parameters, it is concluded
The lowest ELR belonged to LAES, so this ESS had less environmental that the LAES is the appropriate system and has the highest sustain-
stress. EmA made it possible to assess the sustainability of any product. ability. The sustainability of HES was lower than that of LAES but in
By measuring the ESI, the sustainable performance of each system could fact the ESI of more than one could be considered as an acceptable
be obtained. This ratio accounted for the both economic and ecological system. The economic transformity of HES was obtained 2 and 1.5
compatibilities. LAES showed better ecological performance and en- times lower than of the LAES and CAES, respectively. Therefore, the
vironmental sustainability compared to CAES and HES. Furthermore, HES had higher emergy efficiency than the other two ESSs. In order to
the ESI of all the ESSs were achieved more than the ESI of the wind this investigation, HES system could be the best choice.
farm, this is the consequence of the heavy cost of the wind power plant There are several traditional and modern ESSs for many applica-
construction. LAES besides its high sustainability had multiple affir- tions and in this study, only three of them were analyzed by the emergy
mative characteristics such as the independence from geographical re- method. More research can be done to evaluate the other ESSs by using
strictions and trustworthiness. Moreover, it was based on proven this method, which at the same time taking account the energy, ma-
technologies. terials, economic and environmental impacts.
The results were also compared to that of the several other energy
power plants as shown in Table 7. The lowest transformities were re- Declaration of interests
lated to the wind power plants, which illustrated wind power plant had
more emergy efficiency. The differences between the values of trans- None.
formity amounts for wind power plants could be due to the use of
different transformity of their inputs, as well as the difference in their References
service costs and in the type of equipment. It was realized that fossil
fuel (coal) power plant had the highest ELR, so it had the highest en- [1] Zolfaghari S, Riahy GH, Abedi M. A new method to adequate assessment of wind
vironmental impact and had the worse ecological performance. farms’ power output. Energy Convers Manage 2015;103:585–604.
[2] Amirante R, Cassone E, Distaso E, Tamburrano P. Overview on recent developments
Based on the results of emergy sustainability indicator, LAES is the in energy storage: Mechanical, electrochemical and hydrogen technologies. Energy
best option. However, the transformity of HES was lower than the Convers Manage 2017;132:372–87.
transformity of CAES and LAES, it means that the lower of environ- [3] Kusakana K. Feasibility analysis of river off-grid hydrokinetic systems with pumped
hydro storage in rural applications. Energy Convers Manage 2015;96:352–62.
mental support was needed to produce it. Also, HES had a very high [4] Rahimi E, Rabiee A, Aghaei J, Muttaqi KM, Esmaeel Nezhad A. On the management
volumetric energy density compared to CAES and LAES. Furthermore, of wind power intermittency. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:643–53.
the hydrogen produced in electrolyzer can be used for heating without [5] Singha S, Singha M, Kaushikb SC. Feasibility study of an islanded microgrid in rural
area consisting of PV, wind, biomass and battery energy storage system. Energy
the need for a power plant to produce electricity. Additionally, the

10
S. Yazdani, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 191 (2019) 1–11

Convers Manage 2016;128:178–90. eco-efficiency evaluation of building manufacturing. Ecol Indic 2011;11:1419–25.
[6] Zhao P, Wang J, Dai Y. Thermodynamic analysis of an integrated energy system [39] Li C, Gillum C, Toupin K, Park YH, Donaldson B. Environmental performance as-
based on compressed air energy storage (CAES) system and Kalina cycle. Energy sessment of utility boiler energy conversion systems. Energy Convers Manage
Convers Manage 2015;98:161–72. 2016;120:135–43.
[7] Tola V, Meloni V, Spadaccini F, Cau G. Performance assessment of Adiabatic [40] Houshyar E, Wu XF, Chen GQ. Sustainability of wheat and maize production in the
Compressed Air Energy Storage (ACAES) power plants integrated with packed-bed warm climate of southwestern Iran: an emergy analysis. J Clean Prod
thermocline storage systems. Energy Convers Manage 2017;151:343–56. 2018;172:2246–55.
[8] Fuchs G, Lunz B, Leuthold M, Sauer DU. Overview of nonelectrochemical storage [41] Yang J, Chen B. Emergy analysis of a biogas-linked agricultural system in rural
technologies. 1st ed. Elsevier; 2015. China – a case study in Gongcheng Yao Autonomous County. Appl Energy
[9] Liu J-L, Wang J-H. A comparative research of two adiabatic compressed air energy 2014;118:173–82.
storage systems. Energy Convers Manage 2016;108:566–78. [42] Aghbashlo M, Rosen MA. Consolidating exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental
[10] Kim Y-M, Lee J-H, Kim S-J, Favrat D. Potential and evolution of compressed air analyses using the emergy concept for better understanding energy conversion
energy storage: energy and exergy analyses. Entropy 2012;14:1501–21. systems. J Clean Prod 2018;172:696–708.
[11] Wang J, Ma L, Lu K, Miao S, Wang D, Wang J. Current research and development [43] Liu C, Cai W, Jia S, Zhang M, Guo H, Hu L, et al. Emergy-based evaluation and
trend of compressed air energy storage. Syst Sci Control Eng 2017;5:434–48. improvement for sustainable manufacturing systems considering resource efciency
[12] Caralis G, Christakopoulos Th, Karellas S, Gao Zh. Analysis of energy storage sys- and environment performance. Energy Convers Manage 2018;177:176–89.
tems to exploit wind energy curtailment in Crete. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [44] Luo Z, Zhao J, Yao R, Shu Z. Emergy-based sustainability assessment of different
2019;103:122–39. energy options for green buildings. Energy Convers Manage 2015;100:97–102.
[13] Fertig E, Apt J. Economics of compressed air energy storage to integrate wind [45] Yang J, Chen B. Emergy-based sustainability evaluation of wind power generation
power: a case study in ERCOT. Energy Policy 2011;39:2330–42. systems. Appl Energy 2016;177:239–46.
[14] Peng H, Shan X, Yang Y, Ling X. A study on performance of a liquid air energy [46] Odum HT. Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making.
storage system with packed bed units. Appl Energy 2018;211:126–35. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1996.
[15] Kim J, Noh Y, Chang D. Storage system for distributed-energy generation using [47] Odum HT. Systems Ecology; An introduction. United States; 1983.
liquid air combined with liquefied natural gas. Appl Energy 2018;212:1417–32. [48] Ulgiati S, Brown MT. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made
[16] Kantharaj B, Garvey S, Pimm A. Compressed air energy storage with liquid air ecosystems. Ecol Model 1998;108:23–36.
capacity extension. Appl Energy 2015;157:152–64. [49] Geng Y, Zhang P, Ulgiati S, Sarkis J. Emergy analysis of an industrial park: the case
[17] Guizzi GL, Manno M, Tolomei LM, Vitali RM. Thermodynamic analysis of a liquid of Dalian China. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:5273–83.
air energy storage system. Energy 2015;93:1639–47. [50] Brown MT, Raugei M, Ulgiati S. On boundaries and ‘investments’ in Emergy
[18] Qing H, Lijian W, Qian Z, Chang L, Dongmei D, Wenyi L. Thermodynamic analysis Synthesis and LCA: a case study on thermal vs. photovoltaic electricity. Ecol Indic
and optimization of liquefied air energy storage system. Energy 2019;173:162–73. 2012;15:227–35.
[19] Xie Ch, Hong Y, Ding Y, Li Y, Radcliffe J. An economic feasibility assessment of [51] Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S, Zhang P. Measuring China's circular economy. Science
decoupled energy storage in the UK: With liquid air energy storage as a case study. 2013;339:1526–7.
Appl Energy 2018;225:244–57. [52] Zhang X, Ma F. Emergy evaluation of different straw reuse technologies in
[20] Borri E, Tafone A, Romagnoli A, Comodi G. A preliminary study on the optimal Northeast China. Sustainability 2015;7:11360–77.
configuration and operating range of a “microgrid scale” air liquefaction plant for [53] Pan H, Zhang X, Wang Y, Qi Y, Wu J, Lin L, et al. Emergy evaluation of an industrial
Liquid Air. Energy Storage 2017;143:275–85. park in Sichuan Province, China: a modified emergy approach and its application. J
[21] Ancona MA, Antonucci V, Branchini L, Catena F, De Pascale A, Di Blasi A, et al. Clean Prod 2016;135:105–18.
Thermal integration of a high-temperature co-electrolyzer and experimental me- [54] Liu W, Wang J, Sun L, Wang T, Li C, Chen B. Sustainability evaluation of soybean-
thanator for Power-to-Gas energy storage system. Energy Convers Manage corn rotation systems in the Loess Plateau region of Shaanxi, China. J Clean Prod
2019;186:140–55. 2018;210:1229–37.
[22] Carmo M, Fritz DL, Mergel J, Stolten D. A comprehensive review on PEM water [55] Chen S, Chen B. Sustainability and future alternatives of biogas-linked agrosystem
electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:4901–34. (BLAS) in China: an emergy synthesis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
[23] Cau G, Cocco D, Petrollese M, Kær SK, Milan C. Energy management strategy based 2012;16:3948–59.
on short-term generation scheduling for a renewable microgrid using a hydrogen [56] Neyestanak AAL. Wind energy developments in Manjil and Roodbar (Iran) Canada
storage system. Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:820–31. IEEE Canada Electrical Power Conf. Montreal, Que.2007. p. 336–41.
[24] Cau Giorgio, Cocco Daniele, Petrollese Mario, Kær Søren Knudsen, Milan C. Energy [57] Manjil Green Electricity Power Production Company. Iranian Privatization
management strategy based on short-term generation scheduling for a renewable Organization (IPO), 2014.
microgrid using a hydrogen storage system. Energy Convers Manage [58] Yang ZF, Jiang MM, Chen B, Zhou JB, Chen GQ, Li SC. Solar emergy evaluation for
2014;87:820–31. Chinese economy. Energy Policy 2010;38:875–86.
[25] Zhang F, Zhao P, Niu M, Maddy J. The survey of key technologies in hydrogen [59] Zhang G, Long W. A key review on emergy analysis and assessment of biomass
energy storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:14535–52. resources for a sustainable future. Energy Policy 2010;38:2948–55.
[26] Garmsiri S, Rosen M, Smith G. Integration of wind energy, hydrogen and natural gas [60] Zotter G, Hermeling W, Sanz W. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel cryogenic
pipeline systems to meet community and transportation energy needs: a parametric rankine cycle for wind energy storage June 11-15, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark
study. Sustainability 2014;6:2506–26. Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012. 2012.
[27] Safari F, Dincer I. Assessment and optimization of an integrated wind power system [61] Kabir KM, Matin Bhuiyan MA, Meng W. Design & simulation of hydrogen based
for hydrogen and methane production. Energy Convers Manage 2018;177:693–703. hybrid green power system using sea water for Cox’s Bazar. Cogent Eng 2017;4.
[28] Zanabria C, Andrén FP, Strasser TI. An adaptable engineering support framework [62] Badwal SPS, Giddey SS, Munnings C, Bhatt AI, Hollenkamp AF. Emerging electro-
formulti-functional energy storage system applications. Sustainability 2018;10. chemical energy conversion and storage technologies. Front Chem 2014;2.
[29] Li Cuiping, Zhang Shining, Zhang Jiaxing, Qi Jun, Li Junhui, Guo Q, et al. Method [63] Ursua A, Gandia LM, Sanchis P. Hydrogen production from water electrolysis:
for the energy storage configuration of wind power plants with energy storage current status and future trends. Proc IEEE 2012;100:410–26.
systems used for black-start. Energies 2018;11:16. [64] Bastianoni S. Use of thermodynamic orientors to assess the efficiency of ecosystems:
[30] Odum H. Environment, power, and society. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1971. a case study in the lagoon of Venice. Sci World J 2002;2:255–60.
[31] Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: [65] Morgan R, Nelmes S, Gibson E, Brett G. Liquid air energy storage – analysis and first
monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. results from a pilot scale demonstration plant. Appl Energy 2015;137:845–53.
Ecol Eng 1997;9:51–69. [66] Tafone A, Romagnoli A, Li Y. Techno-economic Analysis of a Liquid Air Energy
[32] Sha S, Melin K, Hurme M. Computer aided solar energy based sustainability eva- Storage (LAES) for Cooling Application in Hot Climates. Energy Procedia
luations in process design. The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering; 2013. 2017;105:4450–7.
[33] Liu X, Guo P, Guo Sh. Assessing the eco-efficiency of a circular economy system in [67] Peng X, She X, Li Y, Ding Y. Thermodynamic analysis of Liquid Air Energy Storage
China's coal mining areas: emergy and data envelopment analysis. J Clean Prod integrated with a serial system of Organic Rankine and Absorption Refrigeration
2019;206:1101–9. Cycles driven by compression heat. Energy Procedia 2017;142:3440–6.
[34] Sciubba E. S U. Emergy and exergy analyses: complementary methods or irreducible [68] Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Ebrahimi-Moghadam A, Pishbin SI, Pourramezan M.
ideological options? Energy 2005;30:1953–88. Investigating the effect of hydrogen injection on natural gas thermo-physical
[35] Bastianoni S, Facchini A, Susani L, Tiezzi E. Emergy as a function of exergy. Energy properties with various compositions. Energy 2019;167:235–45.
2007;32:1158–62. [69] Becherif M, Ramadan H, Cabaret K, Picard F, Simoncini N, Bethoux O. Hydrogen
[36] Song D, Lin L, Wu Y. Emergy analysis of a typical New Suspension Preheaters ce- energy storage: new techno-economic emergence solution analysis. Energy Procedia
ment plant in China. J Clean Prod 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 2015;74:371–80.
03.041. [70] Yang Q, Chen GQ, Liao S, Zhao YH, Peng HW, Chen HP. Environmental sustain-
[37] Ren J, Tan S, Yang L, Goodsite ME, Pang C, Dong L. Optimization of emergy sus- ability of wind power: an emergy analysis of a Chinese wind farm. Renew Sustain
tainability index for biodiesel supply network design. Energy Convers Manage Energy Rev 2013;25:229–39.
2015;92:312–21. [71] Sha S, Hurme M. Emergy evaluation of combined heat and power plant processes.
[38] Li D, Zhu J, Hui ECM, Leung BYP, Li Q. An emergy analysis-based methodology for Appl Therm Eng 2012;43:67–74.

11