## 1 Introduction
The high-pressure air pressurized by the compressor is reserved during the peak period, and it is released to generate power through the turbine in the off-peak period. The non-negligible advantages of CAES are its fast response, low construction cost, large capacity, and long lifetime [16]. However, some technology restrictions still exist for the CAES system. In the current research, CAES can be widely classified into four types, including traditional CAES, AA-CAES (advanced adiabatic compressed air energy storage), LAES (compressed liquid air energy storage), and ICAES (isothermal compressed air energy storage) [1]. For the traditional CAES, the efficiency is low because of the irreversible losses during internal flowing and energy conversion, as well as the waste gas emission after turbine expansion [17]. And for the underground CAES, macro-cracks could appear in the lined underground caves because of high tensile stress and varying temperature during air injection [15]. To improve system efficiency and reduce the waste gas pollution, AA-CAES is proposed, which would use stored heat from the compression process [18]. The system efficiency of the traditional CAES is about 30% to 43%, while the AA-CAES can reach 50% to 75% [17]. For the LAES, it compresses air at atmosphere pressure and then condenses it to the liquid state, improving the energy storage density and the system efficiency [19; 20]. However, these three types of CAES technologiesare restricted to fossil fuels and geographic conditions [20; 21]. For the ICAES, it has no limitations of geographic conditions and it has low compression power and high efficiency. But the difficulties that it needs to overcome include finding a method to enhance the heat transfer efficiency to make the expansion and the compression close to the isothermal process [1]. Compared to air, the critical temperature of CO\({}_{2}\) is close to normal temperature. CO\({}_{2}\) can be liquefied at room temperature (the critical point of CO\({}_{2}\) is at 7.4 MPa, 31.4 \({}^{\circ}\)C), and the density of CO\({}_{2}\) in the liquid phase and the supercritical phase is several times the density of air, making CO\({}_{2}\) more suitable to be the working medium of energy storage systems. The system structure of the compressed carbon dioxide energy storage (CCES) resembles the CAES. [PERSON] et al. [22] first proposed a TC-CCES which used water to store heat energy and cool salt water to store cold energy, while the discharging time was 2 h and charging and discharging power was 50 MW. [PERSON] et al. [23] proposed a TC-CCES which used cooling energy of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and thermal energy of a geothermal source. This paper systematically studied the influence of three key parameters (CO\({}_{2}\) turbine inlet temperature, inlet pressure, and outlet pressure) on the system performance. [PERSON] et al. [24] accomplished the exergetic analysis of a two-stage TC-CCES, determining the component with the greatest exergy loss. [PERSON] et al. [25] integrated a CCES system with the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) to make full use of the stored compression intercooling energy during the storage period. The results demonstrated that the system net output energy, the system exergy efficiency, and the total product unit cost under typical conditions were 27.736 MW, 66.64%, and USD 20.34/GJ, respectively. [PERSON] et al. [26] proposed a novel adsorption-type trans-critical compressed carbon dioxide ESS which achieved high-density and low-pressure CO\({}_{2}\) storage by using high-pressure absorbers to absorb CO\({}_{2}\) rather than CO\({}_{2}\) liquefaction. The thermodynamic simulation and parameter sensitivity analysis were conducted and the system round trip efficiency, the exergy efficiency, and the energy storage density under typical conditions were 66.68%, 67.79%, and 12.11 kWh/m\({}^{3}\), respectively. [PERSON] et al. [27] proposed a new CCHP combined with the TC-CCES and wind energy (which includes wind power and wind energy waste heat).