1887

Abstract

Summary

The selection criterion for future underground hydrogen storage may initially be based upon the storage capacity combined with the proximity to the hydrogen transport network. This market driven approach neglects other information which may strongly influence the economics of such storage. Several risks such as legacy or abandoned wells, cap rock quality or microbial activity might alter the development of the underground storage. The Analytical Hierarchy Process was applied to identify the most suitable storage opportunity between salt caverns and porous media traps (covering depleted fields, existing underground gas storages and aquifers). Seven criteria were used in the analysis: the lithology of the seal, its estimated minimum thickness and lithology, the existing faults and number of abandoned wells, the lithology of the storage and its readiness level (estimated time to market), and the microbial risk. Following this analysis, when suitable salt deposits are available in a country, salt caverns are likely to be the most suitable setting for underground hydrogen storage. Porous media storages such as depleted gas fields or conversion of existing natural gas storages may also be suitable opportunities for underground hydrogen storage.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202321012
2023-11-14
2025-11-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Le Gallo, Y., and Vincent, C. [2022] An assessment of hydrogen storage potential in porous media in Europe–Results from HYSTORIES Project. In EAGE GET 2022: The Hague.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska, J., Tarkowski, R., Uliasz-Misiak, B. [2018]. Screening and ranking framework for underground hydrogen storage site selection in Poland.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(9), 4401–4414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.089.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Munier, N., Hontoria, E., Jiménez-Sáez, F. [2019]. Strategic approach in multi-criteria decision making (Vol. 275). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Réveillère, A., and Le Gallo, Y. [2023]. Ranking and selection of geological stores.HYSTORIES report D7.3https://hystories.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Hystories_D7.3-1-Ranking-and-selection-of-geological-stores.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Saaty, T. L. [1990]. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process.European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Saaty, T.L. [2008]. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.Int J Serv Sci.1:83–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wagner, M., and Huynh, D. [2023]. Microbiological characterization of European porous storages.HYSTORIES final conference. https://hystories.eu/final-conference/
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202321012
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202321012
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error