Skip to main content
Library

Energy mass balanceCostingEquipment sizingStorage

Liquid air energy storage (LAES) plant levelized cost of storage

Liquid air energy storage plant: LCOS in EUR/MWh delivered from separate liquefier, turbine and tank costs (Gøtske et al. 2023 overnight literature cost, linear in capacity as in the source), round-trip efficiency from academic and vendor bases with optional waste heat, cycles capped by recharge time, and the gap to Carrington and Hunterston costs.

Photo of Open Jack

Open Jack

Founder · OpenJack

Add to project
  • CurrencyEUR 2025
  • Battery limitinstalled
  • 56 documented assumptions
  • Updated27 Oct 2026

Mass and energy balance

What the asset draws and delivers for the case and load you choose.

Reference case

Full charge-discharge cycles you want a year. No grounded default: 300 is a project assumption for near-daily cycling. The plant cannot do more than the clock allows (charge plus discharge time), so above about 10 h the achieved cycles fall below the request. The slider starts at 200; below it the capital and O&M parts grow in inverse proportion to the cycles.

Flows

  • In: Electricity for charging—

Asset

Liquid air energy storage (LAES) plant

  • Out: Electricity discharged—

Annual quantities at the current usage.

Electrical output of the expansion turbines. The catalogue binds products here: Highview Carrington is 50 MW for 300 MWh (6 h). The liquefier is sized at the same power (Gøtske et al. use one cost for charge and discharge). Costs are linear in capacity, as in Gøtske et al. 2023: power changes the totals, not the cost per kWh.

Energy capacity
— MWh
Charge (liquefier) power
— MW
Energy delivered
— MWh/year

CAPEX

Specific cost at this size, what backs it, and how it behaves with scale.

Specific CAPEX at this size

—

Reference size 50 MW

Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

Model value: the Gøtske/Gautam overnight literature cost, linear in capacity, installed and without contingency or owner's costs. Customized: your own installed cost per kWh stored, used as is at every size; it is then no longer sourced. Either way project mode adds working capital and contingency. Carrington funding is about 1,181 EUR/kWh, roughly 5.4 times the model at that configuration.

Specific CAPEX by rated discharge power

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

  1. Ex-factory
  2. Installed· this figure
  3. Fully financed
CAPEX at the battery limit—
Working capital, contingencyproject level

Included

  • Equipment
  • Installation, civil works and engineering

Not included

  • Working capital
  • Contingency

Added at project level

  • Working capital layer, from the project settings
  • Contingency, from the project settings

Project figures

Values passed to project mode when this asset is added to a project.

Concept sketch, not to scale · drag to rotate

Electricity for charging in
—
Electricity discharged outMain product
—
CAPEX to the battery limit
—
Fixed O&M
—
Variable O&M, excluding feedstocks
0 EUR/year
Asset lifetime
30 years

Log in to add this asset to a project.

Levelised cost of storage

A standalone indicator for a quick read. Project mode recomputes it for the whole system.

—

  • LCOS: capital—
  • LCOS: fixed O&M—
  • LCOS: charging electricity—

Linked to the balance above

Full charge-discharge cycles you want a year. No grounded default: 300 is a project assumption for near-daily cycling. The plant cannot do more than the clock allows (charge plus discharge time), so above about 10 h the achieved cycles fall below the request. The slider starts at 200; below it the capital and O&M parts grow in inverse proportion to the cycles.

Hours of discharge at rated power; energy capacity = power x duration. Tanks are cheap (31 EUR/kWh) and turbomachinery expensive (562 EUR/kW per side), so long durations cost less per kWh. Carrington is 6 h, Hunterston 12.5 h. Recharge takes duration / RTE, which limits the cycles a year at long durations.

Share of the reheating at discharge supplied by free external low-grade heat (a nearby plant). 0 % = standalone. 100 % = the middle of Highview's 70-80 % claim (75 %), a vendor claim not independently verified. Linear in between, which is a model assumption. The heat is taken as free.

Average price of the electricity bought to charge. Project assumption: no grounded European off-peak price is cited. Divided by the round-trip efficiency in the LCOS, so at 50 % RTE each 10 EUR/MWh adds about 20 EUR/MWh delivered.

Rate of the capital recovery factor over the 30-year life. Default 7 %, Gøtske et al. 2023. Read as real, because every cost is in constant money with no escalation.

Levelised cost of storage by cycles per year (requested)

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

Benchmarks

This model's figures against published references and reference cases.

Levelised cost of storage, EUR/MWh

53.1 Cetegen et al. 2025, converted

215.9 Xie et al. 2019, converted

666.9 Xie et al. 2019, converted

CAPEX per kWh stored, EUR/kWh

181.4 Mersch et al. 2026, converted

307.1 Derived from NPM 2024

1,181 Derived from The Chemical Engineer 2024

Reference cases at this size and usage

Log in to compare the reference cases.

All results

Every model output at the current settings, grouped, with the sensitivity charts.

57 outputs · 6 groups · 12 also shown above, dimmed

Levelised cost

8
Levelised cost of storage
ComputingEUR/MWh
Total CAPEX
ComputingEUR
LCOS: capital
ComputingEUR/MWh
LCOS: fixed O&M
ComputingEUR/MWh
LCOS: charging electricity
ComputingEUR/MWh
Capital share of LCOS
Computing%
LCOS at the Gøtske 7 % rate
ComputingEUR/MWh
LCOS at Carrington CAPEX level
ComputingEUR/MWh

Size and CAPEX

10
Energy capacity
ComputingMWh
Charge (liquefier) power
ComputingMW
Specific CAPEX
ComputingEUR/kWh
CAPEX per kWh stored
ComputingEUR/kWh
Literature CAPEX per kWh
ComputingEUR/kWh
Size factor on CAPEX
Computingratio
Power-related CAPEX
ComputingEUR
Energy-related CAPEX
ComputingEUR
Power share of CAPEX
Computing%
CAPEX per kW of discharge
ComputingEUR/kW

Efficiency

11
Round-trip efficiency
Computing%
Round-trip efficiency with standing loss
Computing%
RTE of the basis without waste heat
Computing%
Discharge efficiency of the basis
Computing%
Discharge efficiency with waste heat
Computing%
Discharge efficiency at full waste heat
Computing%
Output attributable to waste heat
Computing%
Academic standalone RTE (reference)
Computing%
Highview standalone RTE (reference)
Computing%
Highview RTE with waste heat (reference)
Computing%
Discharge efficiency implied by the 80 % claim
Computing%

Energy balance and duty

13
Energy delivered
ComputingMWh/year
Energy charged
ComputingMWh/year
Heat and losses
ComputingMWh/year
Electricity in per MWh delivered
ComputingMWh/MWh
Cycles achieved a year
Computingcycles/year
Maximum cycles a year
Computingcycles/year
Charge time per cycle
Computingh
Discharge hours a year
Computingh/year
Charge hours a year
Computingh/year
Discharge capacity factor
Computing%
Holding time per cycle
Computingh
Standing loss per cycle
Computing%
Standing loss penalty on charging
Computingratio

Published references

10
Carrington funding per kWh
ComputingEUR/kWh
Model CAPEX at 50 MW, 6 h
ComputingEUR/kWh
Carrington / model CAPEX
Computingratio
Hunterston planned cost per kWh
ComputingEUR/kWh
Model CAPEX at 200 MW, 12.5 h
ComputingEUR/kWh
Hunterston / model CAPEX
Computingratio
Xie et al. LCOS, low scenario
ComputingEUR/MWh
Xie et al. LCOS, high scenario
ComputingEUR/MWh
Xie et al. LCOS at 60 % RTE, upper
ComputingEUR/MWh
Cetegen et al. LCOS
ComputingEUR/MWh

Finance and yearly costs

5
Capital recovery factor
Computing1/year
Annualised CAPEX
ComputingEUR/year
Fixed O&M
ComputingEUR/year
Charging electricity cost
ComputingEUR/year
Total annual cost
ComputingEUR/year

Sensitivities

6 charts
LCOS components vs cycles per year

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

LCOS components by storage duration

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

CAPEX per kWh and total CAPEX vs rated power

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

Round-trip efficiency vs waste heat used

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

LCOS vs charging price

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

Round-trip efficiency by efficiency basis

Log in to view this sensitivity chart.

Sources

56 documented assumptions · 8 sources

About

Calculator context

Liquid air energy storage plant of the Highview Carrington or Hunterston type. In charge, grid electricity liquefies air (compression, cooling with stored cold, expansion); the liquid air waits in low-pressure cryogenic tanks; in discharge it is pumped, evaporated, reheated with stored compression heat (or free external waste heat) and expanded through turbines. You set the discharge power (10 to 300 MW), the duration (4 to 24 h), the cycles you want a year, the efficiency basis and the share of waste heat.

The cost structure is the one of Gøtske et al. 2023: 562 EUR/kW for the liquefier, 562 EUR/kW for the expansion train and 31 EUR/kWh for the tanks, so power is expensive and energy cheap, and the cost per kWh falls fast with duration. It is an overnight technology cost from the literature, installed but without owner's and development costs, first-of-a-kind premium, contingency or financing: a literature cost, not a project cost. The source costs are linear in capacity and carry no plant size, so the model applies no scale law: the cost per kWh depends on duration, not on power. Fixed O&M is 2 % of the power CAPEX and 1 % of the energy CAPEX a year; the CAPEX is annualised over 30 years.

The round-trip efficiency is not settled and the calculator does not settle it. The academic standalone value is 77 % x 65 % = 50.05 %; Highview quoted 55-60 % for a commercial standalone plant and 70-80 % with low-grade waste heat. The model keeps the 77 % liquefier and writes RTE = charge x discharge efficiency in every case. The top of the vendor claim, 80 %, would need a discharge efficiency above 100 % with that liquefier; it is shown, not used. Recharging takes duration / RTE, so a 24-hour plant cannot cycle daily: the cycles you request are capped by the clock.

The capital cost is the weak point. At the Carrington configuration the model gives about 218 EUR/kWh, while the Carrington funding is about 1,181 EUR/kWh (5.4 times, first-of-a-kind and financing included) and the Hunterston projection about 307 EUR/kWh at 200 MW and 12.5 h, 2.5 times the model at that configuration. Both ratios are outputs, and the Customized option takes a quote. At 50 MW, 6 h, 300 cycles, the academic efficiency, 50 EUR/MWh charging and 7 %, the plant costs about 65.5 MEUR and the LCOS is about 172 EUR/MWh, close to 60 % of it charging electricity; at the Carrington cost level it rises to about 491 EUR/MWh. Xie et al. 2019 give 216 to 667 EUR/MWh after currency conversion; Cetegen et al. 2025 about 53. No revenue, tax or subsidy: those belong to project mode, which also adds working capital and contingency on top of this installed CAPEX.

Model

117 variables — inputs, calculations and outputs, with their dependencies.

117 variables shown of 117
VariableValueUnitDepends on
50MW—
6h—
300cycles/year—
1——
0%—
0——
1180EUR/kWh—
50EUR/MWh—
7%—
VariableFormulaUnitDepends on
if((<=)+(<=)+(<=)+(<)+(>)+(<)+(>)+(<)+(>)+(<=)+(<)+(<)+(>)>,,)bool
*kW
*ratio
*ratio
*ratio
(**(+*)^)/max((+*)^-,)1/year
VariableFormulaUnitDepends on
*MW
*MWh
(+)*%
(+)*%
**%
if(==,,/max(,))%
/max(,)%
/max(,)%
+(-)**%
**%
**%
/max(*,)h
/max(+,)cycles/year
min(,)cycles/year
*h/year
*h/year
/*%
max(/max(,)--,)h
/(*)*%
/max(-*,)ratio
*MWh/year
/max(,)*MWh/year
/max(,)MWh/MWh
/max(,)*%
-MWh/year
(-/max(,))*%
(/)^(-)ratio
(*+)/max(,)+EUR/kWh
clamp(if(>=,,*),,)EUR/kWh
**EUR
/max(*,)EUR/kWh
(*+)/max(,)/max(,)*%
**EUR
-EUR
/max(,)EUR/kW
if(<,/,(*(+)^)/max((+)^-,))1/year
*EUR/year
**+**EUR/year
*EUR/year
++EUR/year
/max(,)EUR/MWh
/max(,)EUR/MWh
/max(,)EUR/MWh
++EUR/MWh
/max(,)*%
(*+)/max(,)+EUR/MWh
//(*)EUR/kWh
((*+)/+)*(/)^(-)EUR/kWh
/max(,)ratio
//(*)EUR/kWh
((*+)/(/)+)*(/)^(-)EUR/kWh
/max(,)ratio
(+)*/max(,)+EUR/MWh
/EUR/MWh
/EUR/MWh
/EUR/MWh
/EUR/MWh

Assumptions

56 assumptions used in the calculations

  • Lower limit in guards.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    0
    Numerical constant

  • Unit multiplier in the CRF, guards and Customized switch.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    1
    Numerical constant

  • Mid-point of a published range.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    0.5
    Numerical constant

  • Protects divisions.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    0
    Numerical constant

  • Percent to fraction.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    0.01
    Numerical constant

  • Fraction to percent.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    100
    Numerical constant

  • MW to kW.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    1000
    Numerical constant

  • MWh to kWh.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    1000
    Numerical constant

  • Hours in a year.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    8760
    Numerical constant

  • Hours in a day.

    Market range Exact by definition.

    24
    Numerical constant

  • Identifier of the Gøtske academic efficiency basis.

    1
    Selector

  • Identifier of the Highview commercial standalone efficiency basis.

    2
    Selector

  • Liquefier (charging) cost per kW of electrical input. The source gives no currency year and no plant size.

    Market range no independent range cited

    562EUR/kW
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Expansion train (pumps, evaporator, turbines) cost per kW of output.

    Market range no independent range cited

    562EUR/kW
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Cryogenic tanks and thermal stores per kWh. A 2023 Energies paper argues tank cost was underestimated in earlier studies (about six times for a 50 MW plant); the Customized option covers that.

    Market range no independent range cited

    31EUR/kWh
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Liquefaction side of the round trip; kept in both efficiency bases.

    77%
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Discharge side of the academic basis; 77 % x 65 % = 50.05 % round trip.

    65%
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Boil-off of the low-pressure tanks; about 0.2 % per day-long hold.

    200days
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Physical service life of the plant (conventional turbomachinery and tanks), used both for the annuity and as the asset lifetime exported to project mode.

    30years
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Sec. III.4

  • Yearly fixed O&M on the power-related CAPEX.

    2%
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Sec. III.4

  • Yearly fixed O&M on the energy-related CAPEX.

    1%
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Sec. III.4

  • Default of the discount rate slider and basis of the reference LCOS at the source's rate.

    7%
    Gøtske et al. 2023

  • Liquefier power / discharge power. Kept at 1 to stay on the cost basis; a larger liquefier would recharge faster and allow more cycles at long durations.

    1
    Gøtske et al. 2023 (cost symmetry)

  • Low end of the vendor standalone figure.

    55%
    IMechE 2012 (vendor)

  • High end of the vendor standalone figure.

    60%
    IMechE 2012 (vendor)

  • Low end of the vendor claim with waste heat; not independently verified.

    70%
    IMechE 2012 (vendor)

  • Top of the vendor claim. Not used as a target: with a 77 % liquefier it implies a 104 % discharge efficiency, shown as a separate output.

    80%
    IMechE 2012 (vendor)

  • Size of the catalogue product; configuration of the Carrington cross-check.

    50MW
    The Chemical Engineer 2024

  • Stored energy of Carrington.

    300MWh
    The Chemical Engineer 2024

  • Duration of Carrington.

    6h
    The Chemical Engineer 2024

  • Funding raised, which includes first-of-a-kind engineering, development and financing: an upper reference for the plant cost.

    300000000GBP
    The Chemical Engineer 2024

  • Size of Highview's planned commercial plant.

    200MW
    NPM 2024

  • Stored energy of Hunterston (12.5 h).

    2500MWh
    NPM 2024

  • Developer's expected cost before financial close: a projection.

    650000000GBP
    NPM 2024

  • Low LCOS scenario, used as a benchmark after conversion.

    191GBP/MWh
    Xie et al. 2019

  • High LCOS scenario.

    590GBP/MWh
    Xie et al. 2019

  • Upper LCOS at 60 % round-trip efficiency.

    294GBP/MWh
    Xie et al. 2019

  • Optimistic modelled LCOS from market-optimised operation; secondary report of the paper.

    60USD/MWh
    Cetegen et al. 2025 via The Chemical Engineer

  • No economy of scale applied: Gøtske et al. 2023 cost the plant linearly in capacity (per kW for charge and discharge, per kWh for storage, no plant size), and the model keeps the source's linear costs. Mersch et al. 2026 report a lower optimised cost per kWh at 100 MW than at 10 MW but publish no exponent and do not say whether both optima share a duration, so no scale law is derived from them.

    Market range no independent LAES scale exponent found

    1
    Gøtske et al. 2023 Table 1

  • Reference size of the size factor. Inert: with an exponent of 1 the factor is 1 at every size, so this value changes no result. Set at the Carrington size of the catalogue product.

    50MW
    The Chemical Engineer 2024

  • Converts the Xie et al. 2019 GBP figures.

    0.8847GBP/EUR
    ECB

  • Converts the Carrington (2024) and Hunterston figures.

    0.8466GBP/EUR
    ECB

  • Converts the Cetegen 2025 and Mersch 2026 benchmark figures (latest full-year rate).

    1.13USD/EUR
    ECB

  • Numerical guard only.

    20EUR/kWh
    Model guard

  • Numerical guard only.

    5000EUR/kWh
    Model guard

  • Low end of a 25 MW/125 MWh LAES LCOS. Currency conversion only, no inflation adjustment, and an arbitrage-based duty: places the result, does not validate it.

    215.9EUR/MWh
    Xie et al. 2019, converted

  • High end of the Xie range.

    666.9EUR/MWh
    Xie et al. 2019, converted

  • Optimistic modelled LCOS with market-optimised operation.

    53.1EUR/MWh
    Cetegen et al. 2025, converted

  • Derived ratio including first-of-a-kind engineering, development and financing: wider boundary than the model CAPEX.

    1,181.2EUR/kWh
    Derived from The Chemical Engineer 2024

  • Developer projection at 200 MW / 12.5 h, before financial close.

    307.1EUR/kWh
    Derived from NPM 2024

  • Optimised LAES cost at 100 MW; duration not stated in the abstract.

    181.4EUR/kWh
    Mersch et al. 2026, converted

  • Method: Gøtske et al. 2023 storage cost structure (separate charge power, discharge power and energy costs; FOM 2 %/1 %; 30 years). LCOS = (CRF x CAPEX + fixed O&M) / energy delivered + charging cost / energy delivered. Energy delivered = power x duration x achieved cycles; energy charged = delivered / RTE / (1 - standing loss).

    —
    Unspecified

  • Constant money with no escalation, annualised at a rate read as real. The currency year of the Gøtske costs is not stated by the source (2025 assumptions); benchmarks in other currencies are converted at ECB rates without inflation adjustment and are therefore indicative.

    —
    Unspecified

  • The round-trip efficiency is not settled: 50.05 % academic (Gøtske), 55-60 % vendor standalone, 70-80 % vendor with waste heat (IMechE 2012). The model always writes RTE = charge efficiency x discharge efficiency, keeps the 77 % liquefier, and shows each published figure as a separate reference output.

    —
    Unspecified

  • The model CAPEX is an overnight literature cost, not a project cost: it is 5.4 times below the Carrington funding per kWh at the same configuration and 2.5 times below the Hunterston projection. Carrington includes first-of-a-kind and financing; Hunterston is a projection. The gap is published as outputs, and the Customized option lets you use a quote.

    —
    Unspecified

  • Project mode chains the charging electricity (inlet, priced by the project) and the discharged electricity (main outlet). Fixed O&M is exported undiscounted; no variable O&M is booked so charging is never paid twice. External waste heat is assumed free and is not a flow.

    —
    Unspecified