Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Underground hydrogen storage: Characteristics and prospects T

Radoslaw Tarkowski
Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Science, Poland

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

Keywords: In this study underground hydrogen storage in various storage types (aquifers, depleted deposits of natural gas
Underground hydrogen storage and oil, salt caverns) is examined. A road map for the implementation of underground hydrogen storage is
Renewable energy sources presented.
Energy storage Underground hydrogen storage does not significantly differ from natural gas storage. Nevertheless, it is not
yet an available and technically feasible manner of storing energy and it will not prove to be one in the near
future. The lower cost of hydrogen production through electrolysis will be the decisive factor for the im-
plementation of this method of energy storage on an industrial scale. Numerous problems and challenges in this
field are presented. The fact that specific properties of gaseous hydrogen will have to be handled adequately to
provide tightness during underground storage, transport and withdrawal has been noted. The choice of geolo-
gical structures for underground hydrogen storage should be based on a detailed geological analysis, taking
geological and engineering criteria into account. Any possibility of hydrogen escape beyond the limits of an
underground storage facility should result in the rejection of the hazardous location.
The factors related to the surface installations should be considered only after the selection based on geo-
logical criteria has been conducted. Geological, technological, economic, legal and social obstacles have to be
overcome before the underground hydrogen storage is implemented on a full scale. As a result of the complexity
of the issue coupled with the lack of experience in this kind of operations a prolonged period of studies can be
expected. Any future implementations will have to be preceded by extensive studies aimed at a better under-
standing of the processes of hydrogen interaction with ambient rocks and the installations. Plans to reduce all the
hazards involved should be prepared. These activities should proceed in well-defined time frames.

1. Introduction
Multi-megawatt systems of energy storage will soon be indis-
pensable as renewable energy sources (wind mills, solar cells) will soon
become a major source of energy (their share in the energy mix of
Germany or Denmark is already significant). Underground hydrogen
storage may appear as an interesting solution at various time scales,
firstly for medium and long term storage. In several years the geological
storage of hydrogen may become an economically feasible solution for
using surplus electric energy generated from renewable sources (Fig. 1).
The storage of surplus electrical energy is not by itself a sufficient
justification for planning and building underground hydrogen storage
facilities [1,2]. This type of storage provides various opportunities for
its commercial use in industry and transport. These may be econom-
ically feasible in areas which: have favorable geological conditions,
may produce electrical energy in the amounts of tens of TWh from
intermittent supplies provided by renewable sources, have variable
price of electrical energy during a year and experience the respective
state's supportive policy [3–9].
From the geological point of view, underground space is suitable for
storing hydrogen which may then be used as a carrier of energy pro-
duced in times of surplus energy production and then released to the
electrical grid at peak demand, when it is most valuable [10–12].
Various storage types are considered for storing hydrogen: in porous
rocks (depleted natural gas and oil deposits, aquifers) and in artificial
underground spaces (salt caverns, disused mine workings) [4].
A review of scientific literature on underground hydrogen storage
shows that this topic is now only at the initial stage of elaboration. We
still have scarce hands-on experience with the storage of this gas, only
several industrial installations, and the results of very few research
projects see: [4,9,13]. Interest in the topic allows us to expect that many
obstacles (including the technological ones) will soon be surmounted.
The goal of this paper is to present various potential solutions to
underground hydrogen storage and to delineate the framework of its
implementation on an industrial scale. The properties of hydrogen that
may influence its underground storage are discussed. General aspects of
the underground storage of gases in various types of geological struc-
tures are presented. Three underground hydrogen storage types are

E-mail address: tarkowski@meeri.eu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.051
Received 22 February 2017; Received in revised form 15 January 2019; Accepted 19 January 2019
Available online 31 January 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Tarkowski
Fig. 1. An energy system scheme with a underground hydrogen storage facility.
compared taking relevant geological parameters into account along
with a road map of implementation of underground hydrogen storage
are deliberated. The author's experience in underground carbon dioxide
storage was used in this presentation, as hydrogen storage does not
essentially differ from other underground gas storage (CO2 or natural
gas).
2. Underground gas storage
2.1. Underground gas storage facilities
An underground gas storage facility is an artificially created accu-
mulation of gas in the natural environment at a significant depth,
several hundred meters or more. The gas stored in a storage facility
comprises the working gas –injected into and withdrawn from the
storage – and cushion gas, stored there for the duration of the facility's
life. The role of the cushion gas is to exercise the minimum pressure
needed to prevent the inflow of water into the store space and to pro-
vide optimum conditions of injection [7,11,14–16].
Underground hydrogen storage does not differ significantly from the
underground storage of natural gas, widely employed by petroleum
companies for hundreds of years, or from the underground storage of
carbon dioxide (Carbon Capture and Storage – CCS). Many years of
experience with the 680 UGSs (Underground Gas Storage facilities)
active worldwide in various types of geological structures may be used
successfully, taking the specific features of gaseous hydrogen into ac-
count [4,11,13].
Underground gas storage facilities have many advantages, including
[4,17,18]:
- safety of storage – underground facilities are less susceptible to fire,
terrorist attacks or military actions;
- space management – traditional surface tanks would have to cover
extensive areas to store the same amounts of gas as in underground
facilities; the relatively minor surface installations of the under-
ground facilities are easier to integrate with the landscape and with
existing infrastructure;
- economy – the costs of UGS construction are much lower than those
87
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94
of surface facilities with a comparable capacity;
- availability of suitable geological structures – these are common in
many countries and over large areas.
2.2. Underground gas storage in the world
The number and capacity of underground gas storage facilities have
grown consistently in the last 100 years, especially on the continents of
the Northern Hemisphere. 642 UGSs were exploited worldwide as at
January 2010. Most of them were situated in depleted hydrocarbon
deposits (476), then in aquifers (82) and in salt caverns (76) (Fig. 2).
Most UGSs were located in North America, including 399 in the US and
50 in Canada. Europe was in second place with 130 UGSs, followed by
the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries (50), Asia and
Oceania (12) and one facility in South America and one in Argentina
(Fig. 3) [14].
Depleted hydrocarbon deposits are geological structures that are
most commonly adapted as gas storage facilities. Salt caverns have
recently been increasing in importance as UGSs. According to CEDIGAZ
(the International Association Dedicated to Natural Gas Information) in
2010, among the 202 planned new and expanded already existing UGSs
worldwide, 82 were in salt caverns. In Europe, Germany has extensive
experience in the underground storage of natural gas [10].
According to CEDIGAZ, 680 UGS facilities were in operation in the
world at the end of 2015, representing a working gas capacity of 413
Fig. 2. Share of worldwide UGS by storage type in 2010 (based on [14]).
R. Tarkowski Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94

Phillips has stored 95% hydrogen in the Clemmons salt dome since the
1980s. The cavern's roof is about 850 m below the ground. The cavern
is shaped like a cylinder 49 m in diameter and 300 m high. The usable
hydrogen capacity is 30 million m3, or 2520 metric tons. The storage is
directly connected with the Old Ocean Refinery. In Texas, Praxair has
been operating UHS in a salt cavern for several years, to enable the
“peak shaving” of its hydrogen production. This facility is connected to
the Praxair Gulf Coast hydrogen pipeline network, which serves the
petrochemical needs of Texas and Louisiana [9].
Coal gas, obtained by the gasification of coal, may be considered as
a good analog of hydrogen storage as it contains about 50–60% of
hydrogen (other components include CO, CO2, CH4 and N2). It was
commonly used in Europe in the middle of the 19th century, before it
Fig. 3. Share of UGS by regions (based on [14]).
was replaced by natural gas. For decades it was stored in both salt
caverns and aquifers. In France, at Beyens, Gaz de France (GDF) stored
manufactured gas containing 50% of hydrogen in a saline aquifer with a
capacity of 385 million st-m3 between 1956 and 1972. The gas was
produced in the coal and steel coking process in Eastern France. The
objective was to regulate fluctuations in gas production/demand.
However, intense bacterial activity and consecutive transformation of
the gas was observed [9]. Methanogenic bacteria initiates the Sabatier
methanogenetic reaction (4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O − 134 kJ/mol);
the geological structures used for hydrogen storage may, in such a case,
be used as underground methanation reactors (UMRs) [23–26]. The
experience with the storage of coal gas at Lobodice (Czech Republic)
Fig. 4. Working gas capacity by storage type in 2015 (based on [19]). has shown that after several months of storage, about half of the hy-
drogen was transformed into methane through the biodegradation of
hydrogen in reaction with CO and CO2 to CH4 [27,28].
bcm (billion cubic meters). Most of this capacity is concentrated in the
Underground hydrogen storage is an element in the energetic cycle:
three developed gas markets: North America – 38%, CIS – 29%, Europe
energy production from renewable sources → conversion into hydrogen
– 27%, Asia/Oceania – 4%, Middle East – 2% of the global UGS capa-
→ hydrogen storage → reconversion of hydrogen into other forms of
city. Working gas capacity by the type of UGS facility is distributed as
energy → consumption of energy. The part of the cycle related to un-
follows: depleted fields – 80%, aquifers – 12%, salt caverns – 8%
derground hydrogen storage comprises its transport from the site of its
(Fig. 4). The EU working gas capacity was 110 bcm, comprising re-
production (electrolysis) through a dedicated pipeline to the site of
spectively: depleted fields – 68%, aquifers – 15% and salt caverns – 17%
injection. The surface installation at the storage site includes sections
[19]. More detailed data is presented in The Underground Gas Storage &
for: compression, decompression, purification and dehydration. The
LNG Storage Market in the World 2015–2035 – sixth edition, a reference
underground part consists of an injection/extraction well with a sub-
report that builds on the CEDIGAZ Underground Gas Storage Database
surface installation and of a cavern created by dissolution (in the case of
[20].
storage in salt deposits) or a tight structure in porous rocks — aquifer or
depleted hydrocarbon deposit. The volumes of single salt caverns vary
2.3. Experience with underground hydrogen storage from 150,000 to 800,000 m3; systems of caverns are also used. The
storage and recovery of hydrogen involves its compression and de-
Hydrogen has previously been stored in three salt caverns at compression, between the minimum and maximum working pressure,
Teesside in the UK since 1972 and in two at the US Gulf Coast in Texas depending on the depth of the cavern's location. The gas injected to a
since 1983 (for more details see Table 1). The experience in hydrogen cavern includes working gas (that can be recovered during a normal
storage in these caverns has proven that hydrogen can be safely stored working regime) and so-called cushion gas (usually ca. 30% of the in-
for a long time period more in: [4,9,21,22]. In the UK, at Teesside in jected gas). Up to ten injection-withdrawal cycles may be carried out in
Yorkshire, a British company stores 1 million m3 of pure hydrogen a year [7,29]. The parameters of injection and withdrawal are de-
(95% H2 and 3–4% CO2) in three salt caverns at a depth about 400 m at termined using computer modeling, based on geological characteristics
50 bar. The hydrogen is ultimately consumed by nearby industrial of the structure and properties of hydrogen [30,31].
plants for the production of ammonia and methanol. In Texas, Conoco
3. Hydrogen properties in the context of its underground storage
Table 1
Existing hydrogen storage caverns in the US and the UK (based on [4]). Hydrogen particle H2 may occur in various states, depending on the
temperature and pressure (Fig. 5). At low temperatures, hydrogen is a
Clemens Moss Bluff Teesside (UK)
(USA) (USA) solid with a density of 70.6 kg/m3 at − 262 °C. At higher temperatures
it is a gas with a density of 0.089 kg/m3 at 0 °C at a pressure of 1 bar.
Geology Domal salt Domal salt Bedded salt The extent of hydrogen's liquid state is shown by the narrow zone be-
Operator Conoco Praxair Sabic Petroleum
tween the triple point and the critical point, with a density of 70.8 kg/
Phillips
Stored fluid Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen m3 at −253 °C. Hydrogen storage basically implies the reduction of the
Commissioned [year] 1983 2007 ~1972 enormous volume of hydrogen gas. One kilogram of hydrogen in am-
Volume [m3] 580,000 566,000 3 × 70,000 bient temperature and at atmospheric pressure occupies a volume of
Reference depth [m] 930 > 822 350 11 m3. In order to increase the hydrogen density for storage, its requires
Pressure range [bar] 70–135 55–152 ~45
compression or cooling below the critical temperature. Otherwise, re-
Possible working gas 2,56 3,72 0,83
capacity H2 Mio [kg] pulsion must be reduced by the interaction of hydrogen with another
material. Another important factor for a hydrogen storage system is the

88
R. Tarkowski Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94

4. Hydrogen storage in geological structures

The following types of underground hydrogen storage types have

been considered [4,6,8,22–24,38,39]:

1. aquifers,
2. depleted hydrocarbon (natural gas and petroleum) deposits,
3. caverns mined in rock salt by dissolution,
4. underground mine workings (abandoned salt or limestone mines)
and rock caverns.

Due to their questionable tightness, the necessity of technical

Fig. 5. Hydrogen phase diagram (based on [32]). adaptation as storage sites and the low importance of geological cri-
teria, underground mine workings are omitted in the further part of this
paper.
reversibility of the hydrogen's injection and withdrawal. Six possible
For the first three storage types specific conditions for each type
methods have been proposed for reversible hydrogen storage with high
have to be met to make the adaptation for underground hydrogen
volumetric and weight density: as a gas, as a liquid, as a gas adsorbed at
storage (UHS) possible. The first two types are of pore-fracture type,
a material surface, as metal hydrides, as complex hydrides and using
where geological aspects and conditions are decisive for storage and the
chemical reactions [32].
technical aspects are of secondary importance.
As the hydrogen particle is the smallest chemical particle known,
UGSs in depleted deposits have been the most common type in the
gaseous H2 has a high penetrability; it diffuses in solids several times
world. Such deposits are usually already equipped with installations for
faster than e.g. methane (Table 2). This may cause problems during its
the injection and withdrawal of gas and with systems of gas processing
storage in salt caverns. In aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon deposits,
and preparation for transport in a transmission system. Consequently,
tightness for hydrogen is improved by the presence of water in the pore
the conversion of a depleted deposit into a UHS facility involves lower
space of the rocks combined with a low solubility of hydrogen in water,
financial spending. In contrast, technical aspects and factors are im-
equal to 0.00018 mol/mol at 25°C and a pressure of 100 bar, and with
portant in cavern-type facilities, while limitations are provided by the
the low diffusion coefficient of the order of 10−9 m2/s in pure water
transfer capacity of the surface installation. The proper functioning of
and 10–11 m2/s in water-soaked argillaceous rocks [33]. The tightness
an underground storage facility ensures that the injected gas will be
of argillaceous rocks regarding hydrogen, meaning the loss of hydrogen
withdrawn in a sufficiently great amount, without losses caused by gas
by diffusion in these rocks and its solubility in reservoir water, have
escaping [14].
been estimated at ca. 2% during one storage cycle [34]. Salt caverns are
Underground hydrogen storage facilities, similarly as UGS facilities,
naturally dry structures which implies potential problems with hy-
may be created at sites with suitable geological conditions. Conditions
drogen diffusion through the salt walls. Chemical reactions may present
and requirements for the selection of a deposit or structure as a UHS
another potential problem during hydrogen's contact with ambient
location should be based on detailed geological analyses using deposit
rocks. Reactions in the mineral matrix seem to proceed very slowly in
engineering methods. The basic parameters are: structure depth,
temperatures below 100 °C under atmospheric pressure and in the ab-
thickness, tightness, reservoir pressure, reservoir characteristics – por-
sence of catalysts. An increase in pressure (as at greater depths) may
osity and permeability, geomechanical properties and proper char-
cause a marked acceleration of the reactions [35].
acteristics of the insulating roof rocks. The basic criterion for a structure
The material durability of a metal pipeline may be drastically re-
planned for an underground hydrogen storage facility is its geological
duced when the metal is exposed to hydrogen for a long time, especially
tightness also secured by the tightness of the roof rocks. This should
to hydrogen in a high concentration and under high pressure. The in-
raise no doubts and hydrogen should not leak behind the limits of the
fluence of hydrogen on the properties of steel alloys is known as hy-
storage space. The technical, environmental, legal, economic and other
drogen blistering, hydrogen-induced cracking and hydrogen embrit-
aspects are also important. The technical tightness of the installation
tlement [36]. Other potential problems are related to the leakage of
includes the tightness of the boreholes drilled on the site and of the
hydrogen through pipe walls. The permeability index for hydrogen is
surface equipment, including gas transporting pipelines. The adequate
four to five times higher than that for methane in a typical polymer pipe
choice of exploitation parameters, taking individual characteristics of
used in natural gas distribution systems. On the other hand, the loss of
the reservoir and the choice of such injection and withdrawal pressures
natural gas and hydrogen mix 60:40 calculated for the US pipe in-
that would not exceed the pressure of rock fracturing into account are
stallations would constitute only 0.0002% of the total amount of gas
also of key importance [4,9,14,15,17,24,40–42].
used in the US. Consequently, such leaks are considered as economic-
We have to prove that the object is useful, favorably situated with
ally insignificant [37].
respect to the distribution system and, most importantly, that the
construction is cost-effective. The location of a UHS facility must take
Table 2 any limitations in the development of the site, such as: the presence of
Comparison of physicochemical properties of hydrogen, methane and gasoline protected areas, the possibility of brine disposal during the creation and
(based on [71–73]). the exploitation of storage facilities in salt caverns into account. Plans
Properties Hydrogen Methane Gasoline of location have to be based on the concept of sustainability, con-
sidering environmental limitations, economic needs and the expecta-
Molar mass 2.016 16.043 ~107
tions of local communities [1,2,4,12].
Density at NTP [kg/m3] 0.08375 0.6682 751
Heating value [kJ/g] 120–142 50–55.5 44–47.3 Interest in hydrogen storage in geological structures is constantly
Flammability limits [vol% in air] 4–75 5.3–15 1–7.6 increasing, which is reflected in numerous technical publications. These
Minimum ignition energy [mJ] 0.02 0.29 0.24 deal with various aspects of the topic, including the use of underground
Autoignition temperature [°C] 585 540 228–471 space for storing energy [1,5,43], technology of energy storage in the
Detonability limits [vol% in air] 11–59 6.3–13.5 1.1–3.3
form of hydrogen [2,6,44], technical aspects [9,25,45–47], evaluation
Diffusion coefficient in air at NTPa [cm2/ 0.61 0.16 0.005
s] of the potential of underground hydrogen storage worldwide [48] and
in individual European countries [13,38]. The behavior of hydrogen in

89
R. Tarkowski Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94

Table 3
Relevant geological, technical, environmental, health and cost aspects of various options for underground hydrogen storage.
Deep aquifers Depleted oil and gas fields Salt caverns

Occurrence
The depth of deposits
Lithology of site storage and
caprock
Recognition
Storage capacity
Geological tightness
Required research
Recent experience
throughout the world
Availability of geological
structures and existing
infrastructure
Injection and withdrawal
cycles
Number of boreholes
Technical tightness
Flexibility of cycling
Impurities in withdrawn gas
Limitations
Cost of construction and
operation
Prevalence in all sedimentary basins
Various depths, optimally up to 2000 m
Reservoir rocks with high porosity and high
permeability, roof rocks providing seal, not
cracked
Low. Recently recognised in Europe in the
context of assessing the potential for CCS
Very high and high
The tightness of aquifer initially unknown, a
low risk of gas leakage
Possible leakage paths (geophysical surveys,
exploratory borehole and borehole tests,
laboratory testing of rock samples). Chemical,
mineralogical and biological reactivity
between hydrogen and the rock formation and
its sealing overburden; tightness of gaprocks
for hydrogen permeation. Monitoring of the
tightness and controlling of reservoir pressure.
Detailed characteristics of the storage site and
creation of a digital model
No experience with storage of pure hydrogen.
Numerous underground stores of natural gas
working successfully
Availability of deep aquifer with sufficiently
recognised favorable geological conditions,
usually close to end users. No infrastructure
on deposits
One, maximum two cycles of injection and
withdrawal per year
A few boreholes for injection and withdrawal
of gas; additional observational boreholes
required
Boreholes (necessity of liquidation or sealing
those already existing, borehole new ones,
resistant to hydrogen)
Used for seasonal storage
Undesirable reactions producing gases such as
H2S and CH4 with loss of hydrogen
Adaptation of existing boreholes for hydrogen
storage may not be feasible. The availability
of suitable technology and equipment for the
construction and operation of the storage
system
The costs higher than the cost of storage in
salt caverns or hydrocarbon deposits
Traps accumulating hydrocarbons
Various depths, optimally up to 2000 m
Reservoir rocks with high porosity and high
permeability, roof rocks providing seal, not
cracked
Geology well recognised
High and very high. Close to the quantity of
exploited gas
The existence of gas deposits confirms their
tightness
Monitoring of the tightness and controlling of
reservoir pressure. Chemical, mineralogical
and biological reactivity between hydrogen
and reservoir rocks and its sealing
overburden; tightness of caprock for hydrogen
permeation. Detailed characteristics of the
storage site and creation of a digital model
No experience with storage of pure hydrogen.
Numerous underground stores of natural gas
working successfully
Availability of deposits (natural geological
traps) with recognised favorable geological
and mining conditions. The existing
infrastructure on a deposit could be adapted
for gas storage
One, maximum two cycles of injection and
withdrawal per year
A few boreholes for injection and withdrawal
of gas; additional observational boreholes
required
Boreholes (necessity of liquidation or sealing
those already existing, borehole new ones,
resistant to hydrogen)
Used for seasonal storage
Undesirable reactions producing gases such as
H2S and CH4 with loss of hydrogen, mixing of
residual hydrocarbons with hydrogen in the
case of depleted oil fields
Adaptation of existing boreholes for hydrogen
storage may not be feasible. The availability
of suitable technology and equipment for the
construction and operation of the storage
system. Reactivity of hydrogen with liquid
hydrocarbons limiting the usefulness of
depleted oil fields
The lowest storage costs for the use of
depleted natural gas deposits, higher for oil
fields
Prevalence in many sedimentary basins
Various depths, optimally up to 1500 m
Thick salt deposits; salt beds seem most
appropriate
Well recognised salt formations in Europe
High. Corresponding to the volume of a cavern
or a group of cavern
The tightness is assured by favorable
properties of the salt rock
Geophysical surveys of salt caverns during
cavern leaching. Periodic surveys of changes
in the cavern during operation. Detailed
characteristics of the site storge and creation
of a digital model
Positive experience with storage of hydrogen
and other gases
Availability of salt deposits with sufficiently
recognised favorable geological and mining
conditions. No infrastructure on deposits
Possibility of multiple (up to 10) cycles of
injection and withdrawal of gas per year
One borehole per cavern
Boreholes (necessity of liquidation or sealing
those already existing, borehole new ones,
resistant to hydrogen)
Possible use for storage more frequent than
seasonal
Impurities caused by undesirable reactions
between hydrogen and interbeddings other
than rock salt
Convergence causing clamping of the cavern.
The availability of suitable technology and
equipment for the construction and operation
of the storage system. The availability of water
for cavern leaching
Higher than in depleted hydrocarbon fields

conditions of underground storage is more complex than previously
expected, different from that of natural gas. This requires detailed
studies, as numerous authors have pointed out [6,9,10,49–51]. The
activity of methanogenic bacteria may lead to the loss of hydrogen
stored underground, a fact also raised by many researchers
[23,24,26,50]. The results of the still very few projects of underground
hydrogen storage have been presented in some recent publications
[4,5,49].
Literature on underground hydrogen storage in geological struc-
tures is mainly based on analogies to the storage of natural gas and
carbon dioxide. This is due to the extensive practical experience gained
in the storage of these gases in geological structures. In the following
chapters the author presents the important geological, technical and
environmental aspects of the various options of underground hydrogen
storage in aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon deposits, based on lit-
erature on the geological and engineering aspects of underground gas
storage [4,6–9,11,14,15,17,22,25,38–41,52–55]. The results are syn-
thetically presented in Table 3.
More and more attention is recently being turned to the analysis of
geological and other conditions in the site selection for underground
hydrogen storage. Le Duigou et al. [56], using such criteria as geologic
potential (depth, thickness, knowledge of the region's geology, existing
above-ground infrastructure), the demand for hydrogen in both 2015
and 2050 in the three sectors of interest (industry, natural gas and
mobility) and proximity to high wind energy potential, demonstrated
that the geological storage of hydrogen in underground salt caverns is a
technically feasible option in the mass-scale storage of electric energy in
countries with a favorable geological structure. They indicated six po-
tential regions in France: Alsace, Aquitaine, Paris, Bresse, the South-
East and Valence, which are suitable for this purpose.
A detailed analysis of the state of knowledge on the geological re-
cognition of non-developed salt domes in Poland led to an evaluation of

90
R. Tarkowski
their usefulness for hydrogen storage in caverns [58]. The presented
evaluation is also valid for the selection of storage caverns sites for
other gases and the proposed methods may be applied in similar works
in other areas having underground salt deposits.
The results of applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in
selecting geological structures (aquifers, hydrocarbon deposits and salt
structures) for hydrogen storage have proved promising [57]. The
proposed method makes it possible to take objective decisions while
selecting the best structure, the most satisfactory from the points of
view of all the criteria taken into account in decision making. This
method also provides a base for ranking the potential locations (geo-
logical structures) proposed as underground hydrogen storage sites,
using the common and the specific criteria for each of the three types of
sites. The presented decision system is versatile and it may be applied in
the evaluation of geological structures regardless of their location. It
takes the interests of many players involved in UHS and the various
aspects of the topic into consideration.
4.1. Storage in aquifers
Aquifers are porous and permeable rock formations which have the
pore space occupied by fresh or saline water (at greater depths). They
are common in all sedimentary basins all over the world and they may
present an alternative for underground hydrogen storage in those areas
where depleted hydrocarbon deposits or salt caverns are not available.
Many of them are situated close to major energy consumers or large
cities and urban agglomerations. They have been safely used as natural
gas storage sites for decades.
Hydrogen storage in deep aquifers is similar to that in depleted oil
and gas deposits. Two basic geological conditions have to be met to
create an underground storage facility: the rocks selected for injection
have good reservoir characteristics and they are overlain by imperme-
able roof rocks that will prevent migration of the gas stored.
As the pore space of the aquifer chosen for storage is filled with
water, this liquid must be displaced downward and sideways to create
storage space. This action is related to the increase of pressure in the
structure involved. Gas injected into the storage space displaces water
that later comes back when the gas is withdrawn. The gas/water
boundary is shifting during the functioning of the storage facility and
water seals the storage space, also at the bottom. Some significant
amount of gas will remain in the aquifer and it will not be available for
later recovery. The volume of gas that may be stored depends on the
volume and porosity of the reservoir and on the temperature and
pressure of storage (the pressure changes during the injection and
withdrawal of gas).
Many potential hazards are related to the possible migration of
hydrogen in aquifers, such as the leakage along undetected faults,
biochemical reactions or reactions of hydrogen with minerals in the
reservoir rock. In contrast to the depleted oil and gas deposits, the
tightness of an aquifer has initially been unknown and it must be re-
cognised. This is why aquifers require the drilling of wells that would be
used for detailed, laborious and costly tests to determine the tightness
of the entire storage site and the overlying sealing rocks. This makes the
creation of such a storage facility more costly.
The risk of hydrogen leakage to the surface is small. A possible
eruption may be prevented by the automatic closure of the subsurface
safety valve(s) [Subsurface Safety Valve – SSV]. Hydrogen stored in an
aquifer can’t ignite because of the lack of oxygen, which completely
removes the possibility of the formation of a flammable mixture.
4.2. Storage in depleted oil and gas deposits
Deposits of natural gas and petroleum occur in so called geological
traps. These usually consist of a reservoir (accumulation of hydro-
carbons in the pore space of such rocks as sandstones or carbonates), its
seal and an underlying aquifer. The rocks that seal the trap (low
91
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94
permeable and non-fractured) keep the hydrocarbons in the reservoir
and do not allow them to migrate beyond its limits. Exploitation re-
moves a part of the hydrocarbons, but not all of them.
The most common type of underground storage sites are depleted
gas deposits. Deposits of this type are usually equipped with necessary
surface and subsurface installations, which may be used for hydrogen
storage. Their adaptation to the needs of underground hydrogen storage
allows costs to be reduced. Some geological criteria have to be met for a
depleted hydrocarbon deposit to be used as an underground hydrogen
storage site. A complete integrated evaluation of the processes involved
in the conversion, covering the geological and technical aspects, in-
cluding those related to the boreholes (type of casing, kind of steel and
cement used), to the surface installations and others is necessary. The
safety of storage is the key issue.
The advantage of depleted hydrocarbon deposits is that they were
well recognised during their exploration and exploitation. The tightness
of a gas deposit is guaranteed by its existence — gas remained there for
millions of years. A depleted natural gas deposit usually contains some
amount of remnant gas that may be used as a cushion gas. When
planning to establish a UGS/UHS facility in a depleted gas deposit, it is
important to cease gas extraction at an optimum time. This allows the
storage to be create in a shorter time and at a lower cost. Newly created
UGS facilities usually attain their planned exploitation parameters in
about 5 years. Formation waters that invaded the gas deposit after the
cessation of its exploitation are being expelled during this time. The
maximum pressure in underground storage situated in the depleted
deposits adapted as UGS sites often exceeds the original reservoir
pressure. This makes the storing of greater amounts of gas than were
originally present in the deposit possible.
Depleted oil deposits are not very often converted to underground
gas storage facilities. Large amounts of hydrogen may enter into che-
mical reactions with residual oil and become converted into e.g. me-
thane, dissolve in the oil and become irreversibly lost.
4.3. Storage in salt caverns
Salt caverns (artificial chambers created in salt deposits) are sui-
table for storing various substances, especially gases under high pres-
sures. Gas is stored in chambers leached in salt — a salt bed or a salt
dome. UGS in salt are used because of the specific geological conditions
making the deposits tight, the favorable mechanical properties of salt
and its resistivity to chemical reactions with most of the stored sub-
stances. The great thickness of salt deposits enables the construction of
underground storage facilities of great capacity. Specific properties of
salt guarantee long-term stability and the tightness of storage.
Hydrogen has been already successfully stored in several salt caverns in
the UK and the US.
The important criteria in the selection of a site for underground
storage in salt deposits are the following: form and depth, thickness of
the salt beds, proper composition and distribution of rocks in the re-
servoir, and rock solubility. The tightness of storage may be compro-
mised by intercalations of non-salt rocks in the salt beds, but also of
highly soluble potassium-magnesium salts, which may provide a mi-
gration path for the stored gas. Lower depth means that lower amounts
of cushion gas have to remain permanently in the cavern. On the other
hand, the lower the pressure in the cavern, the more the cavern be-
comes compressed and the lesser amount of gas may be injected into it.
An important issue is providing an abundant supply of water for
leaching of the cavern and securing the proper disposal of the brine
obtained in the process. Other technical and economic aspects taken
into account include the distance from the main pipelines and the
availability of technological water. The construction costs of salt
chambers are lower than for other underground workings, as all op-
erations are conducted from the surface through a single well equipped
with adequate casing and installation for gas transmission. No other
technical installations are necessary. Storage facilities in salt caverns
R. Tarkowski
are well manageable, gas may be injected and withdrawn many times a
year. They are well fit for keeping peak-time gas reserves.
5. Selected economic aspects of underground hydrogen storage
Economic aspects of underground hydrogen storage constitute a
separate vast topic. More detailed information and further literature
references may be found in: [4,56,59–62]. Economic aspects related to
the costs of injection/withdrawal of hydrogen into/from a geological
structure and the costs of the surface and underground installations,
based on the data on hydrogen storage in salt deposits, the most popular
option are presented below.
In the case of hydrogen storage in salt caverns, the capital ex-
penditures related to the construction of the caverns by dissolution and
the cost of the gas cushion responsible for maintaining the minimum
pressure of storage are the most important costs. The size of the caverns
(the higher the volume, the lower the unit cost of storage), geological
characteristics of the reservoir (the degree of its recognition), the length
of the pipeline that discards the brine are also important. The cost of the
injection/withdrawal borehole with its tubing is high (much larger than
for natural gas) because of the use of materials impermeable for hy-
drogen and resistant to hydrogen brittleness [17,29]. Capital ex-
penditures on surface installations include the cost of gas compressors,
the number and power of which depend on the depth and volume of the
cavern. Installations for gas dehydration, measurements and service
buildings are less costly. Using the accepted technical and economic
data, the shares of individual capital expenditures may be given as: 60%
- machinery for gas compression, 6% - borehole, 5% - gas cushion, 29%
- construction of the cavern [63].
Technical-economic modeling for a couple of caverns in British salt
deposits, varying in depths and volumes of the caverns, demonstrated
that the total costs of the projects are similar, though the structure of
the costs differs. The costs of shallower storage sites are dominated by
the cost of the cavern construction and the expenditures on surface
installations are smaller. In contrast, the costs of the deep storage sites
are dominated by the very high costs of surface installations, mainly
those for gas compression [64].
The analysis of capital expenditures for four variants of hydrogen
storage [8,65] has demonstrated that the most economically attractive
are depleted hydrocarbon deposits (1.23 USD/kg of stored hydrogen),
then aquifers (1.29 USD/kg). Salt caverns (1.61 USD/kg) and hard rock
caverns (2.77 USD/kg). are much more costly.
Michalski et al. [61] have presented the results of studies on eco-
nomic aspects of hydrogen production and its storage in salt caverns in
Germany, taking various final recipients into account. The analysis of
the macro- and microeconomic aspects of using salt caverns for hy-
drogen storage allowed the authors to determine optimum volumes of
the caverns, locations of the caverns for hydrogen storage and de-
monstrated the possibilities of their integration with electricity pro-
duction from renewable sources. The authors note that optimized hy-
drogen production by electrolysis using energy from renewable sources
combined with hydrogen storage in salt caverns will have a favorable
impact on the power production and distribution system.
The analysis of the literature data from Poland on the evaluation of
the construction costs and exploitation of an underground hydrogen
storage site in a salt deposits has shown [58] that the project may be
profitable and the cost of construction and exploitation should pay for
itself within 10 years.
The HyUnder project provided interesting results about the eco-
nomic aspects of underground hydrogen storage [4]. The results of the
studies conducted for each of the numerous countries involved indicate
that apart from the future costs of electricity, the costs of investment in
electrolyzers and their exploitation are the most important component
of the costs. Detailed information on selected storage sites has been
presented for the investigated storage options. It allows one to evaluate
the costs structure. The results of the economic analysis have been
92
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94
presented for the four studied cases with respect to CAPEX (cost of
caverns, electrolyzers, surface installations), cost of observation and
surveying of caverns, electrolyzer and surface installations and the cost
of electric power OPEX. The results indicate that the cost of electrolysis
predominates in the integrated costs of production and underground
hydrogen storage (above 80% in the cost of investment and main-
tenance), with the greatest share of the costs of electric power. The cost
of hydrogen from electrolysis depends strongly on the use of electro-
lyzers. The conclusion was that the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier
for the storage of energy produced from renewable sources does not
seem to be an economically feasible option for the near future.
A business case for hydrogen storage in salt caverns in the years
2025 and 2050 was studied accepting the demand for hydrogen from
various sectors, including mobility (FCEVs), hydrogen-consuming in-
dustry and “Power-to-Gas” technology [56]. The results show that the
total cost of integrated production and underground hydrogen storage
is dominated by electrolysis (> 80% of cost), with a major share of
electricity. According to the authors, high utilization rates of electro-
lyzers are necessary to reach UHS profitability. Though the leaching of
a salt cavern requires a significant financial investment, this cost
amounts to only a few percent of the total UHS cost. The mobility
market will be the key driver to seeing a massive hydrogen economy
grow, with an easier to achieve target cost (EUR 4/kg H2, ex-storage).
Summing up, underground hydrogen storage will be related to the
demand from three major interested parties: the power industry, car
transport (car fueled with hydrogen fuel cells) and the hydrogen-con-
suming industry. In the near future and in the longer perspective hy-
drogen will be increasing in importance in solving the technological
and ecological needs of the power industry and transport. The dec-
arbonization of the power industry, the main interested party, requires
the further growth of hydrogen energetics connected with using surplus
energy from the irregular output from renewable energy sources. This
will make the project economically profitable and the first beneficiaries
will be the countries with a high share of wind and solar energy in their
energy mix. The cost of the electric current for hydrolysis is now the
main economic factor preventing this technology from wide-scale ap-
plication. An increase in electrolyzer efficiency and durability is the
main domain of research in this field. The costs of transport and storage
are much lower and will decrease with the spread of this technology.
6. Road map for the implementation of underground hydrogen
storage
The previously obtained experience in gas storage, including hy-
drogen storage in salt caverns in the US and the UK show that under-
ground hydrogen storage is a technically feasible manner of mass-scale
energy storage. It will be possible in areas with an adequate geological
structure [4,16,22,66–68]. Geological, engineering, economic, legal
and social issues have to be overcome before the full-scale underground
hydrogen storage will be implemented, similarly as is the case with the
underground storage of carbon dioxide [69,70].
The choice of locations for the underground hydrogen storage will
require proceeding according to a schedule – a road map in which the
governmental and non-governmental bodies, universities, research in-
stitutes and industry, all have various roles to play. These activities
should often proceed parallel to one another and in coordinated time
frames.
Making an inventory of renewable energy sources (wind and solar,
existing and planned, estimation of the amount of energy for under-
ground storage), sites of hydrogen production and the initial selection
of hydrogen storage locations should be conducted by governmental
agencies at the initial phase of the entire enterprise.
A preliminary evaluation of the usefulness of geological structures
as underground hydrogen stores should involve geological, economic,
political, environmental, social and other criteria. The first criterion,
concerning geological conditions that do not change, is the hard
R. Tarkowski
criterion. The other criteria are soft, they may and often do change in
short time.
Research institutions are best prepared to conduct geological sur-
veys, to evaluate the usefulness of the proposed sites of underground
hydrogen storage, to develop estimation methods for the potential ca-
pacity of underground hydrogen storage, to elaborate prediction
methods regarding how stored hydrogen will behave in the under-
ground storage facility. Many research and demonstration projects will
be needed for the full understanding of the processes of hydrogen in-
teraction with ambient rocks and with the transmission and storage
installations, for the evaluation of potential hazards and the possibi-
lities of their reduction.
Industry should have the leading role in the selection of adequate
locations and should present detailed geological evidence based on
geophysical surveys, boreholes and modeling. Additionally, the plan-
ning of the construction and the construction of installations and sto-
rage sites will be the responsibility of the industry.
Government agencies (geological surveys) should monitor the pro-
cess of underground hydrogen storage, while research institutes should
participate in these activities and systematically adjust the capacity
estimates as well as those of the predicted hazards.
The local population should permanently be consulted, beginning
from the earliest stage of works on the underground hydrogen storage.
Government agencies should secure legal solutions for various arising
matters.
7. Summary
Energy storage is considered to be the key element in energy supply
chain for the 21th century. This is mainly because it can increase the
use of renewable energy resources, enhance grid stability, improve the
efficiency of energy systems, save fossil fuels and reduce the environ-
mental impact of energy generation.
Underground hydrogen storage does not differ markedly from the
underground storage of carbon dioxide. Though we have many years of
experience in gas storage in 680 underground storage facilities and
some initial experience in underground hydrogen storage in salt ca-
verns in the US and the UK, underground hydrogen storage still poses
numerous new problems and challenges.
Specific properties of gaseous hydrogen, its high penetrability and
negative influence on the properties of steel alloys exposed to it, will
have to be handled adequately to provide tightness during underground
storage and transport. The influence of hydrogen's reactivity on the
rock matrix of an underground storage site and on the formation fluids
present in the reservoir must also be taken into account.
The choice of geological structures for underground hydrogen sto-
rage should be based on a detailed geological analysis involving the
evaluation of their usability, both on a basin scale and on a regional
scale, the evaluation of storage capacity, the safety of long-term storage
and other factors. The possibility of hydrogen escape and migration
beyond the limits of the storage facility should be decisive for the re-
jection of hazardous locations. Criteria based on surface-related issues
(hydrogen production, its transport and injection, and costs and profits)
should be taken into account after the selection based on geological
criteria.
Underground hydrogen storage is not yet and in the upcoming years
will still not be an available and technically feasible manner of storing
energy. Lowering the cost of hydrogen production by electrolysis will,
in the future, be a decisive factor for implementation of this method of
energy storage on an industrial scale. The transformation of geological
space into a space occupied by hydrogen will be a challenge for both the
public and the private sector. Geological, technological, economic, legal
and social obstacles will have to be overcome before the underground
hydrogen storage is implemented on a full scale. The complexity of the
problems and the lack of experience in this kind of operations can allow
us to expect a prolonged period of studies. Many demonstration and
93
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94
research projects will be necessary to evaluate potential hazards and
prepare plans of their reduction. These activities should proceed in
parallel well-defined time frames.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared within the scope of statutory research at
IGSMiE PAN (Decision of Ministry of Science and Higher Education
4448/E-275/S/2017 of February 14, 2017).
References
[1] Delmastro Ch, Lavagno E, Schranz L. Energy and underground. Tunn Undergr Sp
Tech 2016;55:96–102.
[2] Sgobbi A, Nijs W, de Miglio R, Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, Thiel Ch. How far away is
hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-term decarbonisation of the European
energy system. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:19–35.
[3] Aneke M, Wang M. Energy storage technologies and real life applications – a state of
the art review. Appl Energy 2016;179:350–77.
[4] Assessment of the potential, the actors and relevant business cases for large scale
and seasonal storage of renewable electricity by hydrogen underground storage in
Europe – HyUnder. Grant agreement no.: 303417. Executive Summary 23 June
2014, 〈http://hyunder.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/D8.1_HyUnder-
Executive-Summary.pdf〉 [Accessed 18 February 2017].
[5] Audigane P, Bader AG, Gentier S, Beccaletto L, Bellenfant G The role of the un-
derground for massive storage of energy: a preliminary glance of the French case.
EGU General Assembly, Vienne, Austria; 2014, 〈https://hal-brgm.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-00968155〉 [Accessed 18 February 2017].
[6] Bai M, Song K, Sun Y, He M, Li Y, Sun J. An overview of hydrogen underground
storage technology and prospects in China. J Petrol Sci Eng 2014;124:132–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.037.
[7] Bünger U, Michalski J, Crotogino F, Kruck O. Large-scale underground storage of
hydrogen for the grid integration of renewable energy and other applications. In:
Compendium of hydrogen energy volume 4: hydrogen Use, safety and the Hydrogen
economy. A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; 2016. p. 133–63.
[8] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Borns DJ. Geologic storage of hydrogen: scaling up to meet city
transportation demands. Int J Hydrog Energy 2014;39(28):15570–82. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.07.121.
[9] Panfilov M. Underground and pipeline hydrogen storage. In: Compendium of hy-
drogen energy volume 2: hydrogen storage. Distribution and Infrastructure. A vo-
lume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; 2016, p. 91–115.
[10] Bauer S, Beyer C, Dethlefsen F, Dietrich P, Duttmann R, Ebert M, et al. Impacts of
the use of the geological subsurface for energy storage: an investigation concept.
Environ Earth Sci 2013;70:3935–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2883-0.
[11] Sørensen B. Underground hydrogen storage in geological formations, and com-
parison with other storage solutions. Hydrogen Power Theoretical and Engineering
International Symp; 2007.
[12] Uliasz-Misiak B, Przybycin A. Present and future status of underground space use in
Poland. Environ Earth Sci 2016;75:1430.
[13] Tarkowski R. Perspectives of using the geological subsurface for hydrogen storage
in Poland. Int J Hydrog Energy 2017;42:347–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.10.136.
[14] Gąska K, Hoszowski A, Gmiński Z, Kurek A. Monografia podziemnych magazynów
gazu w Polsce. Stowarzyszenie Inżynierów i Techników Przemysłu Naftowego i
Gazowniczego Oddział Warszawa II, Warszawa; 2012.
[15] Kłeczek Z, Radomski A, Zeljaś D. Podziemne magazynowanie. CMG KOMAG, Pr
Nauk – Monogr 2005;9:1–98.
[16] Riis T, Sandrock G, Ulleberg Ø, Vie PJS. Hydrogen Storage R&D: priorities and
Gaps,. Hydrogen Production and Storage. R&D Priorities and Gaps. OECD/IEA;
2006. p. 19–33. (International Energy Agency. Hydrogen Implementing
Agreement).
[17] Kunstman A, Poborska-Młynarska K, Urbańczyk K. Geologiczne i górnicze aspekty
budowy magazynowych kawern solnych. Przegląd Geol 2009;9:819–28.
[18] Kaliski M, Sikora A. Wodór a podziemne magazynowanie energii w strukturach
solnych. Przegląd Solny 2013;9:26–32.
[19] Natural Gas In The World– Editio; 2016. 〈http://www.cedigaz.org/documents/
2016/NGW2016/NGW2016-ABSTRACT.pdf〉, [Accesed 20 February 2017].
[20] Carnot-Gandolphe S. Underground Gas Storage & LNG storage market in theWorld
2015–2035. Sixth ed. CEDIGAS; 2016.
[21] Evans D, Highley D, Gale I, Cowley J, Rayner D, Hill A. Mineral planning factsheet.
underground storage. British geological survey. Nat Environ Res Counc 2008:21.
[22] Stone HBJ, Veldhuis I, Richardson RN. Underground hydrogen storage in UK 313.
Geological Society, Special Publications; 2009. p. 217–26.
[23] Ebigbo A, Golfier F, Quintard M. A coupled, pore-scale model for methanogenic
microbial activity in underground hydrogen storage. Adv Water Resour
2013;61:74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.09.004.
[24] Panfilov M. Underground storage of hydrogen: in situ self-organisation and me-
thane generation. Transp Porous Med 2010;85(3):841–65. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11242-010-9595-7.
[25] Reitenbach V, Ganzer L, Albrecht D, Hagemann B. Influence of added hydrogen on
underground gas storage: a review of key issues. Environ Earth Sci
2015;73(11):6927–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4176-2.
R. Tarkowski
[26] Toleukhanov A, Panfilov M, Kaltayev A. Storage of hydrogenous gas mixture in
geological formations: self-organisation in presence of chemotaxis. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2015;40(46):15952–62.
[27] Smigan P, Greksak M, Kozankova J, Buzek F, Onderka V, Wolf I. Methanogenic
bacteria as a key factor involved in changes of town gas stored in an underground
reservoir. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1990;73:221–4.
[28] Buzek F, Onderka V, Vancura P, Wolf I. Carbone isotope study of methane pro-
duction in a town gas storage reservoir. Fuel 1994;73(5):747–52.
[29] Kruck O, Crotogino F. Benchmarking of Selected Storage Options. HyUnder D(4)
Report, Grant agreement no.: 303417, Deliverable No. 3.3; 2013; p. 32.
[30] Sainz-Garcia A, Abarca E, Rubi V, Grandia F. Assessment of feasible strategies for
seasonal underground hydrogen storage in a saline aquifer. Int J Hydrog Energy
2017;42:16657–66.
[31] Thoraval A, Lahaie F, Brouard B, Berest P. A generic model for predicting long-term
behavior of storage salt caverns after their abondonment as an aid to risk assess-
ment. Intern. Journ Rock Mech Min Sci 2015;77:44–59.
[32] Züttel A. Hydrogen storage methods. Naturwissenschaften 2004;91(4):157–72.
[33] Krooss B. Evaluation of database on gas migration through clayey host rocks.
Aachen; 2008.
[34] Carden PO, Paterson L. Physical, chemical and energy aspects of underground hy-
drogen storage. Int J Hydrog Energy 1979;4(6):559–69.
[35] Truche L, Berger G, Destrigneville Ch, Guillaume D, Giffaut E. Kinetics of pyrite to
pyrrhotite reduction by hydrogen in calcite buffered solutions between 90 and
180°C: implications for nuclear waste disposal. Geochim Cosmochim Acta
2010;74(10):2894–914.
[36] Kanezaki T, Narazaki C, Mine Y, Matsouoka S, Murakami Y. Effects of hydrogen on
fatigue crack growth behavior of austenitic stainless steels. Int J Hydrog Energy
2008;33(10):2604–19.
[37] Melaina MW, Antonia O, Penev M Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas
PipelineNetworks: A Review of Key Issues; 2013. 〈http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy13osti/51995.pdf〉 [Accessed 18 February 2017].
[38] Iordache I, Schitea D, Gheorghe AV, Iordache M. Hydrogen underground storage in
Romania, potential directions of development, stakeholders and general aspects. Int
J Hydrog Energy 2014;39:11071–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.05.
067.
[39] McGown LB, Bockris JO’M. How to obtain abundant clean energy. New York and
London: Plenum Press; 1980.
[40] Tarkowski R. Geologiczna sekwestracja CO2. Studia Rozprawy Monografie No. 132.
Kraków: Wydawnictwo IGSMiE PAN; 2005.
[41] Evans DJ. An appraisal of underground gas storage technologies and incidents, for
the development of risk assessement methodology. RR 605 Research Report, British
Geological Survey for the Health and Safety Executive; 2008. p. 59.
[42] Tarkowski R, Marek S, Uliasz-Misiak B. Wstępna geologiczna analiza struktur do
składowania CO2 w rejonie Bełchatowa. Gospod Surowcami Miner – Mineral Resour
Manag 2009;25:37–45.
[43] Bartel S, Janssen G. Underground spatial planning – Perspectives and current re-
search in Germany. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2016;55:112–7.
[44] Zhang F, Zhao P, Niu M, Maddy J. The survey of key technologies in hydrogen
energy storage. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:14535–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.05.293.
[45] Amid A, Mignard D, Wilkinson M. Seasonal storage of hydrogen in a depleted
natural gas reservoir. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:5549–58.
[46] Ozarslan A. Large-scale hydrogen energy storage in salt caverns. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2012;37(19):14265–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.07.111.
[47] Pottier JD, Blondin E. Mass storage of hydrogen. In: Hydrogen energy system, vol.
295 of the series NATO ASI Series; 1995, p. 167–79.
[48] Simon J, Ferriz AM, Correas LC. HyUnder. Hydrogen underground storage at large
scale: case study Spain. Energy Procedia 2015;73:136–44. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.egypro.2015.07.661.
[49] Audigane P, Ebrahimiyekta A, Pichavant M. Evaluation of Hydrogen migration and
geochemical reactivity into underground. In: Proceedings of the 6th international
conference on fundamentals & development of fuel cells, Toulouse, France; 2015.
〈https://hal-brgm.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01100370〉 [Accessed 18 February
2017].
[50] Hagemann B, Rasoulzadeh M, Panfilov M, Ganzer L, Reitenbach V. Hydrogenization
94
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 86–94
of underground storage of natural gas. Impact of hydrogen on the hydrodynamic
and bio-chemical behavior. Comput Geosci 2015:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10596-015-9515-6.
[51] Henkel S, Pudlo D, Werner L, Enzmann F, Reitenbach V, Albrecht D, et al. Mineral
reactions in the geological underground induced by H2 and CO2 injections. Energy
Procedia 2014;63:8026–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.839.
[52] Ślizowski J, Urbańczyk K. Możliwości magazynowania gazu ziemnego w polskich
złożach soli kamiennej w zależności od warunków geologiczno-górniczych. Wyd.
IGSMiE PAN. Kraków; 2011.
[53] Šliaupa S, Lojka R, Tasáryova Z, Kolejka V, Hladík V, Kotulová J, et al. CO2 storage
potential of sedimentary basins of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and the
Baltic States. Geol Q 2013;57(2):219–32. https://doi.org/10.7306/gq.1088.
[54] Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B, Wójcicki A. CO2 storage capacity of deep aquifers and
hydrocarbon fields in Poland – EU GeoCapacity project results. Energy Procedia
2009;1:2671–7.
[55] Tarkowski R. CO2 storage capacity of geological structures located within Polish
Lowlands' Mesozoic formations. Gospod Surowcami Miner – Mineral Resour Manag
2008;24:101–12.
[56] Le Duigou A, Bader A-G, Lanoix J-C, Nadau L. Relevance and costs of large scale
underground hydrogen storage in France. Int J Hydrog Energy
2017;42:22987–3003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.239.
[57] Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska J, Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B. Screening and
ranking framework for underground hydrogen storage site selection in Poland. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2018;43:4401–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.
089.
[58] Tarkowski R, Czapowski G. - Salt domes in Poland – potential sites for hydrogen
storage in caverns. Int J Hydrog Energy 2018;43:21414–27. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.212.
[59] Lepszy S, Chmielniak T, Mońka P. Storage system for electricity obtained from wind
power plants using underground hydrogen reservoir. J Power Technol
2017;97(1):61–8.
[60] Michalski J. Investment decisions in imperfect power markets with hydrogen sto-
rage and large share of intermittent electricity. Int J Hydrog Energy
2017;42:13368–81.
[61] Michalski J, Bünger U, Crotogino F, Donadei S, Schneider GS, Pregger T, et al.
Hydrogen generation by electrolysis and storage in salt caverns: potentials, eco-
nomics and systems aspects with regard to the German energy transition. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2017;42:13427–43.
[62] Zohrabian A, Majoumerd MM, Soltanieh M, Sattari S. Techno-economic evaluation
of an integrated hydrogen and powerco-generation system with CO2 capture. Int J
Greenh Gas Control 2016;44:94–103.
[63] Górowska K. Kawerna dla wodoru. Chem Przem 2014;6:36–40.
[64] Gammer D. Hydrogen. The role of hydrogen storage in a clean responsive power
system. An insights report by the Energy Technologies Institute; 2015. p. 1–20.
[65] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Klise GT, Borns DJ. A life cycle cost analysis framework for
geologic storage of hydrogen: a user’s tool. 27. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185
and Livermore, California 94550: Sandia National Laboratories; 2011. p. 1–60.
[66] Goltsov VA, Veziroglu TN. A step on the road to hydrogen civilization. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2002;27:719–23.
[67] Riis T, Hagen EF, Vie PJS, Ulleberg Ø. Hydrogen production R&D: priorities and
gaps,. Hydrogen production and storage. R&D priorities and gaps. OECD/IEA; 2006.
p. 5–18. [International Energy Agency. Hydrogen Implementing Agreement].
[68] Stygar M, Brylewski T. Towards a hydrogen economy in Poland. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2013;38:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.056.
[69] Bachu S. Sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change:
road map for site selection using the transform of the geological space into the CO2
phase space. Energy Convers Manag 2002;43:87–102.
[70] Uliasz-Misiak B, Przybycin A. The perspectives and barriers for the implementation
of CCS in Poland. Greenh Gases: Sci Technol 2015;6:7–18.
[71] Alcock J, Shirvill L, Cracknell R. Compilation of existing safety data on hydrogen
and comparative fuels; 2002.
[72] Das LM. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines. In: Compendium of hy-
drogen energy volume 3: hydrogen energy conversion. A volume in Woodhead
Publishing Series in Energy; 2016. p. 177–217.
[73] Spiegel C. Designing and building fuel cells. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007.