In industrial and commercial energy storage systems, the choice of temperature control solution for battery storage cabinets plays a decisive role in the safety, economic efficiency, and service life of the entire system. As the two mainstream thermal management technologies, air cooling and liquid cooling each have their own advantages and limitations. Only through comprehensive evaluation across multiple dimensions—including technical characteristics, economic costs, and environmental adaptability—can the most suitable solution be determined.

1. Comparison of Core Technical Characteristics

1.1 Heat Dissipation Efficiency and Temperature Control

Liquid cooling systems use coolants such as 50% ethylene glycol aqueous solution as the heat transfer medium, with a thermal conductivity as high as 0.58 W/(m·K), providing far superior heat dissipation performance compared to air cooling. With liquid cooling technology, the cell temperature difference can be precisely controlled within 3 °C.

 

Under high-rate charge-discharge conditions (above 3C), batteries generate a large amount of heat, which liquid cooling systems can quickly remove. Liquid cooling also performs excellently in extreme high-temperature environments above 40 °C, with desert photovoltaic plus energy storage projects as typical examples.

 

 

1.2 System Complexity and Maintenance Costs

 

Air cooling systems feature a relatively simple structure, mainly consisting of fans and air ducts, resulting in a lower initial investment cost of approximately 0.499 RMB/Wh. However, since air carries dust, filters need to be cleaned quarterly to maintain effective heat dissipation, leading to long-term O&M costs of around 0.02–0.05 RMB/Wh per year.

 

Liquid cooling systems require the integration of many components such as cold plates, pumps, valves, and heat exchangers, with initial costs 15%–20% higher than air cooling. Nevertheless, liquid cooling systems demand less frequent maintenance, with only one coolant inspection required annually. From a full life cycle perspective, costs for liquid cooling systems can be reduced by 10%–15%.

 

 

1.3 Space Occupancy and Environmental Adaptability

 

Air cooling systems do not require additional piping, allowing the energy storage cabinet volume to be reduced by 10%–15%. This gives air cooling a significant advantage in space-constrained industrial and commercial rooftop scenarios.

 

Liquid cooling systems have higher space requirements due to the need for coolant circulation channels. However, in harsh environments such as high-humidity coastal areas and dusty mines, liquid cooling systems ensure stable operation with a high protection rating of IP65.

 

 

2.Conclusion

 

For projects with power density ≤ 1C, limited budgets, and mild environmental conditions — such as typical industrial and commercial parks — air cooling is the preferred option. For applications involving high-rate charging and discharging, high-temperature or high-humidity environments, or from a long-term investment perspective (e.g., data centers and ports), liquid cooling is more suitable.

 

In addition, a hybrid solution of liquid-cooled PACK + air-cooled PCS can be adopted to balance heat dissipation efficiency and cost. In actual decision-making, it is recommended to combine specific project parameters, conduct economic modeling, and compare technical solutions from manufacturers to select the most appropriate thermal management scheme.