Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Hydrogen storage capacity of salt caverns and deep aquifers versus demand
for hydrogen storage: A case study of Poland
Radosław Tarkowski a, *, Leszek Lankof a, Katarzyna Luboń a, Jan Michalski b
a
Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wybickiego 7A, 31-261 Krakow, Poland
b
Tyczka Hydrogen GmbH, Blumenstr. 5, 82538 Geretsried, Germany

H I G H L I G H T S

• Storage capacity for UHS of salt caverns and deep aquifers is estimated.
• Secure the hydrogen storage capacity versus analyzed cases is considered.
• Dozen GWh to several TWh capacity for UHS is obtained.
• Methodological approach which can be used for other countries is presented.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geological structures in deep aquifers and salt caverns can play an important role in large-scale hydrogen
Hydrogen storage storage. However, more work needs to be done to address the hydrogen storage demand for zero-emission energy
Energy storage systems. Thus the aim of the article is to present the demand for hydrogen storage expressed in the number of salt
Deep aquifers
caverns in bedded rock salt deposits and salt domes or the number of structures in deep aquifers. The analysis
Salt caverns
considers minimum and maximum hydrogen demand cases depending on future energy system configurations in
Hydrogen storage needs
2050. The method used included the estimation of the storage capacity of salt caverns in bedded rock salt de­
posits and salt domes and selected structures in deep aquifers. An estimation showed a large hydrogen storage
potential of geological structures. In the case of analyzed bedded rock salt deposits and salt domes, the average
storage capacity per cavern is 0.05–0.09 TWhH2 and 0.06–0.20 TWhH2, respectively. Hydrogen storage capacity
in analyzed deep aquifers ranges from 0.016 to 4.46 TWhH2. These values indicate that in the case of the upper
bound for storage demand, there is a need for the 62 to 514 caverns, depending on considered bedded rock salt
deposits and salt domes or the 9 largest analyzed structures in deep aquifers. The results obtained are relevant to
the discussion on the global hydrogen economy, and the methodology can be used for similar considerations in
other countries.

1. Introduction the transition to a CO2-neutral economy [7–11].

Most of the energy used today comes from fossil fuels. These have
limited resources, their global distribution is uneven and their negative
impact on the environment and climate cannot be overlooked. Hence, a
renewable energy supply and storage will be needed in the future [1–3].
This will enable the balancing of energy supply and demand, increase
energy security, and enable the transition to a low-carbon economy
[4–6]. The use of hydrogen as an energy carrier, produced by electrol­
ysis from renewable energy sources (RES), is under consideration today.
Hydrogen offers possibilities to move away from fossil fuels, enabling
1.1. Hydrogen energy storage
Hydrogen as an energy carrier. Hydrogen is considered to be one of the
most environmentally friendly fuels and the most promising clean en­
ergy carrier [12–15]. EU energy policy, aimed at decarbonizing the
energy sector, indicates a growing interest in hydrogen production
through water electrolysis using RES [16–21]. The surplus renewable
energy can be converted into hydrogen and then stored for later use
[22–24]. It should be emphasized that hydrogen offers the possibility of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tarkowski@min-pan.krakow.pl (R. Tarkowski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122268
Received 7 March 2023; Received in revised form 1 August 2023; Accepted 4 November 2023
Available online 17 November 2023
0306-2619/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

a controllable and flexible conversion of energy [17,23,25–32]. Tech­ Table 1

nical and technological advances related to green hydrogen [33] as well Relevant geological and technical aspects of UHS in deep aquifers and salt
as the strategies and roadmaps of different countries around the world caverns.
for hydrogen development have recently been outlined and discussed by Aspects Salt caverns Deep aquifers
Lebrouhi et al. [18]. Occurrence Prevalence in many Prevalence in all
As indicated by Delmastro et al. [34] and Sgobbi et al. [27], the sedimentary basins. sedimentary basins.
storage of excess electricity in itself does not justify the planning and The depth of deposits Various depths, optimally Various depths, optimally
construction of underground storage, including hydrogen storage. This 1000–1500 m. 1000–1500 m.
Lithology of Thick horizontal bedded Reservoir rocks with high
type of storage should enable a variety of commercial uses, both in the
underground storage rock salt deposits and salt porosity (15% and more)
industry and transport sectors. Any hydrogen storage facility should and sealing domes seem to be most and high permeability
ensure technical feasibility, economic viability and long-term operating overburden suitable; the insoluble (several hundred mD or
efficiency [35]. Such opportunities are created by UHS in geological interlayers of non-salt more), very low
structures (in appropriate geological formations) [5,36,37]. From a rocks and highly soluble permeability of sealing
salts of K and Mg are layer, non-fractured
geological point of view, underground space is suitable for storing en­ unfavorable. overburden rocks.
ergy in the form of hydrogen and releasing it to the grid, especially Level of evidence Widespread recognition of Poor recognition of
during peak hours, when it is more expensive. It is believed that UHS salt formations. geological structures.
could prove to be an interesting solution for the use of surplus electricity Recently recognized in
Europe in the context of
from intermittent electricity sources (e.g., RES) [2,21,38–40]. It can be
assessing the potential for
profitable in the short term in areas with favorable geological condi­ CCS and UHS.
tions, enabling electricity to be produced from renewable sources, and in Availability of Limited availability of rock Limited availability of
countries with favorable RES support policies in this respect [41–45]. geological structures salt deposits with aquifers near consumers.
Experience of UHS is still modest today and concerns the storage of in relation to favorable geological and
potential recipients mining conditions for the
hydrogen in salt caverns, mainly for the petrochemical industry
construction of salt
[46–49]. Therefore as of today, the use of caverns solution-mined in salt caverns, greater in the case
deposits is the most commonly considered hydrogen storage option of bedded salt deposits
[50–52]. The experience with hydrogen storage in porous geological than in the case of salt
domes.
formations is much more limited. Practical applications are limited to
Geological tightness The tightness is assured by Initially unknown, requires
the storage of town gas, i.e., gas mixtures containing 25–60% hydrogen the favorable properties of detailed research.
and smaller amounts of CH4 (10–33%), CO and CO2 (12–20%) and < the salt rock; the
30% N2 [48,53]. possibility of gas migration
through thin interlayers of
non-salt rocks.
1.2. Geological structures for hydrogen storage Required research Mechanical integrity H2 leakage monitoring
testing (MIT); cavern sonar (geophysical research,
The underground space offers the possibility of storing large quan­ survey during the solution- exploration drilling and
tities of hydrogen. Significant storage capacities exist in geological for­ mining and periodic well testing, laboratory
testing of cavern volume testing of rock samples);
mations, each with individual characteristics to determine their
during operation, detailed geochemical reactivity of
potential for hydrogen storage [43,54–58]. Several UHS options are characteristics of rock salt H2 and the rock formation
considered, the most important of which are: geological structures in and a numerical model of of the storage and sealing
deep aquifers, solution-mined caverns in rock salt deposits and depleted the storage cavern; overburden; microbial
hydrocarbons deposits [17,36,37,50,53,58]. Other sites such as under­ microbial activity activity monitoring;
monitoring. hydrogen tightness of the
ground mine workings, e.g., abandoned salt mines, limestone mines and overburden rocks; constant
rock caverns are also identified in the literature [41,43,48,59]. The monitoring of the tightness
safety of UHS will be a fundamental issue to be considered when of the storage facility and
selecting a site for underground gas storage [60]. This is related to the control of the formation
pressure. Detailed
efficiency of underground gas storage or the losses associated with gas
description of the storage
leakage [35,61]. The quality and tightness of the caprock are particu­ facility and digital storage
larly important when choosing a geological structure for a UHS facility facility model.
[62–64]. Recent experience Rich experience with Positive although few
A determination of the requirements and conditions when selecting a natural gas storage and a experiences with storage of
few positive experiences H2.
site for UHS should be based on an analysis of geological aspects and
with H2 storage.
knowledge of reservoir engineering [37,65]. This includes the most Technology readiness 6–7 3–4
important parameters, such as geological structure (surface area, depth, level
surface, thickness of the reservoir level), tightness, reservoir properties Availability of Availability of salt deposits Availability of deep-
structures and with adequately aquifer formations with
(porosity and rock permeability), reservoir pressure, geomechanical
existing recognized, favorable adequately recognized,
properties and rock characteristics of the sealing overburden and tech­ infrastructure geological and mining favorable geological
nical parameters of the storage operation [66–68]. These are followed conditions. No conditions, usually close to
by technical, environmental, legal, economic and other criteria infrastructure over a rock the end users. No
(Table 1). salt deposit. infrastructure over a
structure.
Flexibility of cycling Used for strategic, seasonal Used for strategic and
1.3. Storage potential of geological structures and peak shaving storage. seasonal storage.
Storage availability - Depending on the storage 1–2 gas injection and
Several review articles, drawing on an increasingly rich literature on number of injection strategy (up to 10–12 withdrawal cycles per
cycles injection and withdrawal year.
the subject of UHS, have been published in recent years
cycles per year).
[36,37,53,56,65,69,70]. There is an interest in the possibility of using
(continued on next page)
rock salt deposits [51,71–73], as well as deep aquifers for UHS [74–76].
This is due to the availability of salt deposits and deep aquifers in

2
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Table 1 (continued ) Estonia [93], Turkey [94], Canada [95,96] USA [97], Australia [98],
Aspects Salt caverns Deep aquifers India [99].
The required hydrogen storage capacity in an integrated energy
Number of required Usually one well per salt >1 injection and gas
wells for exploration cavern. sampling well; additional
system will depend on several factors. On the one hand, these include
and operation of the observation wells required; the expected hydrogen demand and its annual patterns in different end-
storage facility appraisal drilling required. user sectors, such as industry, mobility, heating or power sectors. On the
The ratio of the 20–50% of the working gas 50–70% of the working gas other hand, in the future energy system, the seasonality of renewable
cushion gas to the capacity. capacity.
hydrogen production, based on an intermittent power supply from wind
working capacity
Technical tightness of The application of special The necessity seal existing and solar energy installations will also impact the storage requirements.
the storage facility steels for casing and well wells; construction of new In this context, the more seasonal the H2 supply pattern and the longer
completion elements hydrogen-resistant wells; the periods of low intermittent power production and hydrogen supply,
resistant to hydrogen the need to use steels the more storage capacity will be needed. These assumptions are the
embrittlement, as well as resistant to hydrogen
cement slurries to ensure embrittlement and cement
basis for estimating the potential storage needs for European countries
the tightness of slurries, ensuring the from the perspective 2050 [100] and Michalski et al. [101,102].
cementation. tightness of cementation.
Impurities in Slight contamination Contamination of 1.4. Purpose and scope of research
withdrawn gas caused by undesirable hydrogen as a result of
geochemical reactions of undesirable geochemical
hydrogen with non-salt and microbiological It is believed that the capacity of geological structures for hydrogen
interlayered rocks, reactions at the expense of storage is significant. Leaving aside general considerations on the sub­
microbiological hydrogen, significant gas ject and preliminary estimates by the authors, there are few examples
contamination, gas moisture.
where storage capacity values for specific geological structures are
moisture.
Limitations High rate of convergence Adaptation of existing
presented. The hydrogen storage capacity for structures in deep aquifers
resulting in a reduction of wells to hydrogen storage and solution-mined caverns was not compared yet. Most of the studies so
the cavern storage not necessarily possible; far focused on the total capacity, which in the case of structures in deep
capacity; availability of the limited availability of aquifers differs significantly from the working capacity which can be
technology and equipment appropriate technologies
used for gas storage. The relationship between geological hydrogen
for the construction and and equipment for the
operation of the storage construction and operation storage potential and storage volume demand has not been addressed in
facility; the availability of of the storage facility. the literature so far.
water for the solution- The research problem presented in this paper is the storage potential
mined caverns; brine of salt caverns (in bedded rock salt deposits and salt domes) and
management.
Distance from the main Importance of storage Importance of storage
geological structures in deep aquifers with regard to the hydrogen
pipeline facility location, allowing facility location, allowing storage needs of future energy systems.
connection to the pipeline connection to the pipeline The results of the techno-economic assessment of future scenarios for
network at a reasonable network at a reasonable the deployment of underground renewable hydrogen storage [102] and
cost. cost.
the estimation of hydrogen storage capacity requirements [103] indicate
high values of the maximum storage demand for Poland of approx.
different countries. This is the situation in Europe, where both deep 35–38 TWhH2. Because the total estimated hydrogen working capacity
aquifers and salt-bearing formations occur in large numbers, although of most of the existing salt caverns in Europe (France, Germany, the
unevenly, in rocks of different ages. The prevalence of these structures is Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Portugal) is about 50 TWhH2 [103]
not synonymous with the degree of their exploration, required for the authors decided to consider in the analysis also porous structures in
detailed consideration of UHS storage capacity. An inventory of these deep aquifers which may provide much larger storage capacities than
types of structures and their evaluation, using standardized criteria and salt deposits.
a uniform methodology, aimed at selecting the most optimum, is a ne­ The research results attempt to show the order of magnitude of
cessity [77]. This has recently been conducted under the Hystories hydrogen storage capacity offered by the underground geological
project (hystories.eu) for deep aquifers in most European countries. structures under consideration and how this relates to the demand for
A key aspect will be the assessment of hydrogen storage capacity and storage capacity and the considered hydrogen minimum and maximum
potential on different scales. In a deep aquifer, the storage capacity of storage demand options. In the next stage, a comparison of storage ca­
the geological structure is determined by the size of the structure (the pacity is expected to show how it differs between the two types of UHS.
extent and thickness of the reservoir rock), the petrophysical parameters To estimate the hydrogen storage capacity, publicly available
of the reservoir and overburden rocks (caprock) and the depth and geological metadata from the Central Geological Database of the Polish
pressure changes (fracturing and capillary) related to gas injection Geological Institute [104] and the results of the authors' previous studies
[37,53,76,78]. The lack of detailed hydrogen storage capacity estimates were used. The results of the estimates were related to hydrogen mini­
is currently highlighted as one of the barriers to UHS implementation mum and maximum storage demand cases for Poland in 2050 and were
[70]. In the case of salt caverns, the estimation of hydrogen storage illustrated by the number of salt caverns and the number of geological
capacity and potential will require an analysis of the shape, size and structures in the deep aquifers that would meet the hydrogen storage
number of caverns, their depth and the impact of convergence on stor­ needs.
age [5,79–81]. Salt caverns are solution-mined to a depth of 2000 m and
their height is usually 50–500 m with a diameter of 50–100 m. This 2. Selection of geological structures for hydrogen storage in
makes it possible to store large quantities of hydrogen [53,58,82]. Poland
There is an increasing number of publications assessing the feasi­
bility of potential UHS sites [13,60,72,74,77]. The assessment of UHS Underground hydrogen storage is considered in deep aquifers, salt
capabilities in different countries around the world and in different lo­ caverns, and depleted hydrocarbon deposits. The area of interest of the
cations, was presented for China [43,83,84], Poland authors and their geological database relate to deep aquifers, bedded
[51,58,75,76,80,85], the United Kingdom [62,67,74,86,87], Germany salt deposits and salt domes, which is why the article refers to these
[88], Portugal [89], France [90,91], the Netherlands [92], Latvia and structures.
The fundamental geological parameters adopted in the rock salt

3
R. Tarkowski et al.
deposits and salt domes selection process were the depth of the rock salt
top up to 1800 m bgl (below ground level) and a minimum rock salt
thickness of 150 m.
In the case of deep aquifers, the selected geological structures (traps)
were used to study the hydrogen storage capacity. The characteristics of
the geological parameters of the selected structures, important for the
modeling of storage capacity, were developed.
Location of bedded rock salt deposits, salt domes, and structures in
deep aquifers analyzed for the determination of hydrogen storage po­
tential is shown in Fig. 1.
2.1. Rock salt deposits
The possibility of storing hydrogen in bedded rock salt deposits and
salt domes in Poland was discussed in previous works [51,58,80]. These
deposits are associated with the Zechstein salt-bearing formation,
formed in the Permian Basin and extending from the United Kingdom
through the North Sea, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany to
Poland and Lithuania. This formation covers more than half of the area
of Poland. In the majority of the Permian Basin, rock salt occurs at
depths reaching approx. 5–7 km [105]. At shallower depths, it occurs in
the form of salt structures, such as salt domes or pillows, while in the
Fig. 1. Location of bedded rock salt deposits, salt domes, and structures in deep aquifers analyzed for the determination of hydrogen storage potential.
4
Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268
marginal regions of the sedimentary basin, it occurs in the form of
bedded rock salt deposits. The Zechstein salt-bearing formation is an
alternating complex of evaporitic formations of rock salt layers, potas­
sium and magnesium salts, gypsum, anhydrite, dolomite, limestone,
marls, and clastic sediments representing four cyclothems [106]. The
documented Upper Permian salt deposits in Poland occur in the northern
part of the Polish Zechstein Basin and its southwestern region (Fore-
Sudetic Monocline). In northern Poland, rock salt occurs in the form of a
single deposit of the oldest rock salt (Na1). The rock salt top lies at
depths ranging from 550 m bgl in the vicinity of Łeba to >1100 m bgl in
the southern area of the region. The thickness of the rock salt deposit
varies from a few meters to over 220 m. In the Fore-Sudetic monocline,
rock salt occurs in three layers (Na1, Na2 and Na3) formed in three
cyclothems. The thickness of the rock salt deposits varies greatly and
ranges from a few meters to a hundred or so in the northern region,
exceeding 300 m locally [107,108].
The adopted criteria of maximum depth (1800 m bgl) and minimum
thickness (150 m) allowed for choosing appropriate regions for
hydrogen storage within bedded rock salt deposits in the northern part
of Poland and the Fore-Sudetic Monocline, as well as seven salt domes in
central Poland (Fig. 1). Table 2 shows the relevant parameters of bedded
rock salt deposits selected to estimate H2 storage capacity.
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Table 2 Table 4
Relevant parameters of bedded rock salt deposits selected to estimate H2 storage Relevant geological parameters adopted for H2 injection modeling for the
capacity (based on [58]). Konary, Suliszewo and Sierpc structures (own work based on
SW Poland N Poland
[115–117,119,120]).
Geological Data Konary Suliszewo Sierpc
Depth range [m bgl] 700–1800 500–1800
Structure Structure Structure
Number of rock salt layers [− ] 3 1
The thickness of rock salt layers [m] Na1–0–350 Na1–0–225 Area of the structure [km2] 47 52 60
Na2–0–250 Structurally lowest point in a –1000 –1450 –2150
Na3–0–275 structure that can retain
The surface area of Na1 rock salt layer to the depth of 2748 1047 hydrogen (spill point) [m]
1800 m bgl and thickness > 150 m [km2] Depth of the top of the structure − 682 − 1195 − 2030
Geothermal gradient [◦ C/100 m] 2.7 1.0 [m]
Thickness of the reservoir in the Byczyna 1: Suliszewo 1: Sierpc 2: 46
wells within the structure [m] 94 89
In the central zone of the Polish region of the Permian Zechstein Depth of the reservoir in the well Byczyna 1: Suliszewo 1: Sierpc 2:
Basin, there are numerous elevated salt structures in the form of pillows within the structure [m] 1832–1926 1293–1382 2190–2236
Density of the reservoir rocks 2.54 2.39 2.5
and rock salt deposits, often elongated in a NW-SE direction [51,109].
[kg/m3]
These structures include salt domes that, either partially or completely, Geothermal gradient 2.9 3.5 2.1
pierce the overburden of Mesozoic rocks. In the case of the salt domes of [◦ C/100 m]
central Poland, the top of the rock salt lies at various depths from Reservoir 35.8–45.5 57.9–67.1 58.6–61.2
approx. 170 to 550 m bgl. Table 3 summarizes the data on the basic temperature [◦ C]
Pressure gradient [Pa/m] 10,400 9750 9000
features of undeveloped rock salt deposits selected for analysis, as well Reservoir pressure [MPa] 7.4–10.9 11.8–14.3 18.4–19.5
as their storage potential, based on previous research by the authors Brine salinity [kg/m3] 42 100 150
[80]. Porosity [%] 3–17 5–28 10–16
Permeability [mD] 10–900 9–3670 2–90

2.2. Structures in deep aquifers

the hydrogen storage needs of future energy systems. Therefore, the
The possibility of storing hydrogen in the deep aquifers of the Polish authors adopted the storage demand values from the Hystories project
Lowland was discussed by Tarkowski [85] and Lewandowska- report in which they participated. The analysis presented in the article
Śmierzchalska et al. [77]. In the case of Poland, the locations of struc­ included:
tures for hydrogen storage refer to those selected for the underground
storage of CO2 [111–113]. In addition, they take into account locations − estimation of hydrogen storage capacity in deep aquifers, and salt
where the reservoir level is at a lower depth (over 800 m) than it was in caverns,
the case of carbon dioxide storage. − relating UHS storage capacity in deep aquifers and rock salt deposits
In the article, three geological structures were selected to consider to the storage demand.
the capacity of hydrogen storage in deep aquifers: Konary, Suliszewo
and Sierpc (Fig. 1; Table 4). The reservoir level for hydrogen storage Estimation of hydrogen storage capacity. In the case of bedded rock salt
occurs in the sandstones of the Komorowo formation of the Lower deposits, the knowledge of the thickness of the rock salt layer, its
Jurassic (Pleinsbachian), which are covered with the clay rocks of the average depth and mining parameters facilitate the calculation of the
Ciechocinek Formation of the Lower Toarcian. The choice of structures average cavern volume, determine the working pressure range of stor­
was dictated by the high level of their geological exploration [114–118] age and thus establish the average working capacity of individual cav­
and the existing, original geological models for these structures. The erns. In the case of salt domes, the methodology and results of the study
Suliszewo and Sierpc structures have previously been considered for of the storage capacity of selected salt domes presented by the authors
UHS [75,76], while the Konary structure is being considered for the first [80] were used. The average values of the cavern depth enable the
time. determination of the allowable storage pressure, which, together with
the average cavern volume, determine the average storage capacity of a
3. Research methodology single cavern in each of the analyzed salt domes.
In deep aquifers the hydrogen storage capacity was estimated based
The research problem presented in this paper is the storage potential on hydrogen injection simulations into the selected geological struc­
of salt caverns and geological structures in deep aquifers with regard to tures. For this purpose, based on geological data, spatial geological
models of this structures were created. For each of the considered
structures, the ranges of minimum fracturing pressure and caprock
Table 3
Basic data and storage potential of salt domes selected for analysis (based on capillary pressure were calculated and a separate hydrogen injection
[109,110]). schedule was applied.
Relating UHS storage capacity to the storage demand. The final stage of
Name Surface Depth of Cavern Cavern Average
of salt rock salt top average average cavern work concerns the determination of the required hydrogen storage ca­
dome depth [m depth volume capacity pacity of salt caverns and the geological structures in deep aquifers, with
[km2] bgl] [m bgl] [thousands after first reference to the storage demand expressed as storage throughput
m3] filling [M (Table 6). It was conducted by tabulating and graphically presenting the
Nm3]
energy storage capacity (working capacity in TWhH2) of each of the
Damasławek 16.5 446.0–497.0 1409 295.5 27.6 analyzed structures in deep aquifers and the number of analogous
Dębina 0.5 169.3–215.0 1200 673.5 65.5
structures securing storage capacity in a given case. A similar procedure,
Kłodawa 21.0 227.5–532.2 1705 263.9 19.8
Izbica 4.0 327.7–354.5 1200 450.5 43.8 taking into account the salt caverns required to meet the storage ca­
Kujawska pacity of the assumed cases, was applied for both the bedded rock salt
Lubień 5.9 303.0–441.6 1200 409.1 39.8 deposits and salt domes.
Łanięta 9.5 235.4–303.8 1200 370.1 36.0
Rogóźno 21.0 320.9–372.8 1345 302.3 29.5

5
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

4. Results Table 6
Assumed relevant geological and mining parameters of the analyzed bedded
4.1. Hydrogen storage needs rock salt deposits and hydrogen properties.
Parameter Value
Hydrogen storage needs as an input for further calculations are taken Minimum thickness of rock salt layer[m] 150
from the literature providing corresponding data for Poland. The results Maximum depth of rock salt layer top [m bgl] 1800
of the techno-economic assessment of future scenarios for the deploy­ Thickness of rock salt above salt cavern [m] 45
ment of underground renewable hydrogen storage [102] (Appendix 1) Minimum height of the cavern neck 15 [m] 15
Minimum thickness of rock salt below salt cavern [m] 5
and the estimation of hydrogen storage capacity requirements [103]
Maximum diameter of salt cavern [m] 60
indicate high values of the maximum storage demand for Poland of Distance between salt caverns' axes [m] 250
approx. 35–38 TWhH2. The maximum pressure gradient [MPa/m] 0.016
According to the results for different scenarios presented in [102] the Minimum pressure gradient [MPa/m] 0.00835
overall required volume capacity for underground hydrogen storage in Working volume of salt cavern (without sump filled with insoluble) [− ] 0.8
Hydrogen individual gas constant [J/kg K] 4121.7
EU-27 and the UK ranges between ca. 156 and 284 TWhH2 by 2050 Hydrogen SPT density [kg/m3] 0.08988
(Table 5). Poland accounts for ca. 8% of the European capacities with Hydrogen Lower Heating Value [kWh/Nm3] 3
12–23 TWhH2. The storage facilities in Europe are operated on a sea­ Geothermal gradient (Fore-Sudetic Monocline) [◦ C/100 m] 2.7
sonal basis with 1–2 full cycle equivalents per year and an annual Geothermal gradient (Northern Poland) [◦ C/100 m] 1.0
throughput of ca. 293–393 TWhH2/a in order to balance out fully
renewable power and hydrogen supply and demand by 2050. For Poland
the mean values of these parameters were determined based on a sta­
the analysis in [102] provides similar results of up to 2,4 full cycle
tistical analysis of their depth and thickness rasters. These values were
equivalents per year and a throughput of ca. 29–38 TWhH2/a corre­
determined in areas where the thickness of the deposits exceeds 150 m,
sponding to ca. 10% of the overall European throughput.
and the depth is <1800 m bgl. The energy storage capacity of a single
cavern was calculated by making assumptions on the geological and
4.2. Rock salt deposits mining conditions in the individual deposits and shape of the caverns.
The analysis assumed 1.64 to 2.36 full cycles of hydrogen injection and
4.2.1. Estimation of hydrogen storage capacity withdrawal per year depending on the storage scenario. The geological
To assess the possibility of covering the demand for storage needs and mining conditions affecting the average storage capacity of the in­
with caverns in bedded rock salt deposits and salt domes, depending on dividual layers, together with the determined capacity of a single
the case under consideration, the hydrogen storage capacity was cavern, are presented in Table 7.
assessed separately for the bedded rock salt deposits and salt domes. Salt domes. To determine the storage capacity of the salt domes, the
Bedded rock salt deposits. An analysis of the feasibility of meeting mining parameters and properties of the stored hydrogen, presented in
the demand for hydrogen storage capacity in bedded rock salt deposits Table 6, were adopted. The volume and depth of the caverns were
was conducted, assuming the relevant geological and mining parameters determined based on a statistical analysis of the distribution of the depth
and hydrogen properties, as shown in Table 6. and volume of caverns in the existing underground natural gas storage in
To calculate the capacity of a single cavern, the average depth and the Mogilno salt dome [80]. The average volume of the caverns in the
thickness values of the rock salt deposits considered were determined. analyzed salt domes ranges from 295,500 to 673,000 m3 in the case of
These were determined by statistical analysis of the previously devel­ the Damasławek and Dębina salt domes, respectively. The average
oped depth and thickness rasters of these deposits [58]. Knowledge of depths of the storage caverns also vary in individual salt domes ranging
the values of the average thickness and depth of the rock salt layer, and from 1200 to 1705 m bgl. These differences result from the size of the
the basic mining parameters, i.e., the shape of the cavern, safety pillars salt domes, the rock salt top depth and their geological structure.
thickness and the height of the cavern neck, allows the calculation of the The average values of the cavern's depth enable the determination of
average volume and capacity of the caverns, using the method presented the allowable storage pressure, which, together with the average cavern
by Lankof and Tarkowski [58] (Appendix 2). volume and the adopted hydrogen parameters, helps the determination
The demand for storage capacity was expressed in terms of the of the average storage capacity of a single cavern in each of the analyzed
number of caverns that could be solution-mined in each analyzed rock salt domes. Table 8 shows the average storage capacity of the caverns in
salt layer. The assumed cavern spacing of 250 m means that the area the analyzed salt domes per energy of hydrogen stored.
required per cavern is around 0.054 km2. This value and number of
caverns allow an assessment of the salt deposit's surface area needed to 4.2.2. UHS capacity versus energy demand
meet storage capacity demand. The distance between the caverns' axes Bedded rock salt deposits. The number of caverns meeting the
was determined on the basis of the previous modeling work of the stress hydrogen storage capacity demand, resulting from the assumed cases,
distribution around the caverns and experience gained during the design was calculated based on the average storage capacity of a single cavern,
and construction of underground natural gas storage facilities in Polish
rock salt deposits. [121,122].
To compare the potential capacity of the analyzed rock salt layers, Table 7
Storage conditions in rock salt deposits in southwestern and northern Poland.
Table 5 Average values of storage parameters SW Poland N Poland
Cost-optimized size and way of operation for underground hydrogen storage in Surface area [km2] 1338 1080
salt caverns in Poland and EU27 + UK by 2050 according to different scenarios Thickness [m] 204 169
from [102]. Rock salt top depth [m bgl] 1383 757
Minimum pressure [MPa] 6.4 3.3
Item Poland EU27 + UK
Maximum pressure [MPa] 22.8 12.8
Storage volume capacity [TWhH2] Min. 12.13 155.62 Single cavern volume [m3] 336,500 237,500
Max. 23.25 283.90 Single cavern working capacity [Mg] 2790 1350
Storage throughput [TWhH2/a] Min. 28.65 293.26 Hydrogen energy capacity per cavern [TWhH2] 0.093 0.045
Max. 38.07 393.48 Hydrogen capacity of analyzed rock salt deposit 2299 898
Number of full cycle equivalents per year Min. 1.64 1.37 [TWhH2]
Max. 2.36 1.91 Number of storage cycles per year [− ] 1.64–2.36 1.64–2.36

6
R. Tarkowski et al.
Table 8
Average storage capacity of a single cavern in the salt domes under
consideration.
Salt domes Average hydrogen energy storage capacity per cavern [TWhH2]
Dębina 0.20
Izbica Kujawska 0.13
Lubień 0.12
Łanięta 0.11
Rogóźno 0.08
Damasławek 0.09
Kłodawa 0.06
expressed in terms of stored hydrogen energy and the energy value of
the storage demand in each analyzed case. The results are shown in
Fig. 2 and Table 9. The variability of the storage capacity of individual
bedded rock salt deposits results from their depth, thickness and diverse
geothermal gradient.
It is possible to provide storage capacity with around twice the
smaller number of caverns, due to a much greater average depth and
thickness of the rock salt deposits in southwestern Poland (Fore-Sudetic
Monocline). However, it should be remembered that this is an average
value, which means that in the northern region of Poland it is possible to
find individual areas that are more favorable than in the Fore-Sudetic
Monocline. Assuming an area per single cavern of around 0.054 km2,
it was calculated that even in the case of maximum storage demand, the
area required for UHS facilities would not exceed 2.5% of the surface
area of bedded rock salt deposits, suitable for hydrogen storage. These
values indicate that at the stage of selecting locations for UHS sites, it
will be possible to conduct a suitability analysis considering surface and
economic conditions, ensuring access to substantial storage resources in
the analyzed deposits.
Salt domes. Based on the knowledge of the average capacity of salt
caverns in individual salt domes, the demand for storage capacity,
depending on the analyzed cases, was expressed in the form of the
number of caverns in individual salt domes. As in the case of the bedded
rock salt deposits, caverns' spacing of 250 m was adopted to assess the
feasibility of hydrogen storage in the analyzed caverns of individual salt
domes. In the case of salt domes, the number of caverns needed to meet
storage requirements is shown in Fig. 3 and Table 10.
According to previous estimates [58], small salt domes such as
Dębina, Izbica Kujawska, Lubień, and Łanięta provide the possibility of
solution-mining of relatively large caverns at optimal depths (with the
highest storage capacity). Due to the small area of these salt domes, the
maximum number of caverns that could be solution-mined is 9, 73, 109,
and 175, respectively. Estimations indicate that the storage potential of
the two smallest salt domes, Dębina and Izbica Kujawska, cannot meet
even the minimum demand for storage volume, and only the Dam­
asławek salt dome among the analyzed ones can meet the maximum
demand for storage volume.
In the case of larger salt domes (Damasławek, Rogóźno, and Kło­
dawa), the prevailing geological and mining conditions force the con­
struction of caverns of a smaller capacity. This leads to a situation where
around two to three times as many caverns are needed to cover the same
demand compared to the smaller salt domes. However, they provide a
greater potential for choosing a convenient location for underground
storage sites. When analyzing the possibilities of covering storage vol­
ume demand, it has been observed that in the case of salt domes, the
demand for storage caverns ranges from 62 to 391, depending on the
adopted demand case and the salt dome under consideration. In the case
of a future energy system assuming maximum demand for hydrogen
storage volume, there is a need for 118 to 391 caverns. The range of
results obtained depends on the average values of the caverns' capacities
in the individual salt domes. In the case of minimum demand the cor­
responding numbers range from 62 to 204 caverns.
7
Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268
4.3. Structures in deep aquifers
4.3.1. Estimation of hydrogen storage capacity
The estimation of the storage capacity in the aquifers was conducted
using simulations of hydrogen injection into three geological structures
from the area of the Polish Lowland: Konary, Suliszewo, and Sierpc.
Spatial geological models of the Suliszewo and Sierpc structures are
presented in earlier articles by the authors [75,76]. The spatial
geological model of the Konary structure, presented for the first time,
was built based on the Byczyna 1 well profile and a structural map
[117]. Fig. 4 presents an elliptical/oval model of the structure, created
using PetraSim TOUGH2 software [123], showing the roof of the
reservoir formation. The figure also shows the structurally lowest point
in a structure that can retain hydrogen (spill point). It is − 1000 m
isoline. As a result of the variation in permeability and porosity,
observed within the reservoir formation, 10 layers were separated for
modeling purposes. The hydrogen injection simulation was performed
using the PetraSim TOUGH2 software - EOS5 module [124] for one well,
located at the top of the structure. The relevant geological parameters,
adopted to model hydrogen injection for the structure of Sierpc, Konary
and Suliszewo are presented in Table 4. It was assumed that the injection
of hydrogen will be conducted through the whole reservoir thickness in
the well, the pressure in the near-well zone would not exceed the frac­
turing pressure, and the pressure at the boundary, between the reservoir
level and the caprock, would not exceed the caprock capillary pressure
(detailed description in Appendix 3).
Since the Sierpc, Konary and Suliszewo structures are located at
different depths and show individual geological and reservoir proper­
ties, the ranges of the minimum fracturing pressure and capillary pres­
sure of the caprock, presented in Table 11, were calculated separately.
For each structure, a separate hydrogen injection schedule was used due
to the individual geological properties. The storage scenario assumed
one full cycle of hydrogen per year (6-month injection and 6-month
withdrawal).
The results of the hydrogen storage capacity estimates for deep
aquifers are presented in Table 12. The variability of the storage ca­
pacity of individual structures results from the different depths of the
reservoir level, which translates into the deposit conditions - pressure
and temperature. Reservoir parameters, porosity and permeability are
important aspects that determine the capacity of a structure.
The highest total capacity, as well as working capacity, was obtained
for the Suliszewo structure (4956 and 1487 M Nm3 respectively), which,
in terms of hydrogen stored energy, translates into a working capacity of
4.46 TWhH2. At the Konary structure, the total capacity is 788 M Nm3,
while the working capacity is 211 M Nm3, which equals 0.633 TWhH2.
The smallest capacity was obtained for the Sierpc structure, where the
total capacity is 33 M Nm3, however, the working capacity is 5 M Nm3,
which will yield only 0.016 TWhH2. The difference in the ratio of
working capacity to total capacity is important. The smallest portion of
the total capacity, just 15.2%, is occupied by the working capacity in the
Sierpc structure, in the Konary structure, it is 26.8%, while the largest
part of the total capacity is occupied by the working capacity in the
Suliszewo structure - almost 30%.
4.3.2. UHS capacity versus energy demand
The energy storage capacity (in TWhH2) of each of the structures
analyzed and the number of analogous structures securing storage
throughput demand in the aquifers are shown in Fig. 5 and Table 13. The
variable results of the working capacity translate into the number of
structures needed to secure the storage throughput in a given case. To
cover the throughput for hydrogen, for the minimum case, 1819 struc­
tures similar to the Sierpc structure, 45 similar Konary structures, and 6
Suliszewo structures are needed. However, in the maximum case, it is
2417, 60, and 9 structures, respectively.
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Fig. 2. Comparison of the demand for storage space in southwestern and northern Poland in bedded salt deposits, depending on the adopted hydrogen demand case.

5. Discussion and summary

Table 9
Number of caverns required to secure storage capacity in bedded salt deposit,
The role of hydrogen in a future energy system with a high share of
depending on the hydrogen storage demand.
variable, renewable energy sources is regarded as crucial to balance
Storage demand case Storage throughput [TWhH2/a] Number of caverns
fluctuations in electricity generation [72]. Storage will be a key
SW Poland N Poland component of any regional or national hydrogen network because of
minimum 28.65 130 249 supply and demand variability across different end-use applications
maximum 38.07 269 514 [87]. Significant amounts of hydrogen produced will require very large
storage capacities, which vary from country to country. Such opportu­
nities are created by underground, geological structures offering very
large storage capacities. Their use for this purpose requires not only an

Fig. 3. Comparison of the demand for storage caverns in the selected salt domes, depending on the hydrogen storage demand.

Table 10
Number of caverns required to secure storage needs in individual salt domes, depending on the hydrogen storage demand.
Storage demand case Storage throughput [TWhH2/a] Number of caverns

Dębina Izbica Kujawska Lubień Łanięta Damasławek Rogóźno Kłodawa

minimum 28.65 62 92 102 112 147 137 204

maximum 38.07 118 177 195 215 280 262 391

8
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Fig. 4. Model of the Konary structure built using PetraSim TOUGH2 with vertical permeability and porosity profile.

publications. Our results are part of this line of research. The afore­
Table 11 mentioned projects show hydrogen storage capacity in relation to the
The range of the minimum fracturing pressure and caprock capillary pressure of
identified geological structures in deep aquifers and the number of
the analyzed structures.
caverns needed in salt deposits to meet the demand for hydrogen storage
Sierpc Konary Suliszewo in the timeframe until 2050. This novel approach can be replicated in
Fracturing pressure range [MPa] 31.41–31.95 13.97–15.05 19.93–20.90 other countries, and the described methodology for assessing hydrogen
Minimum caprock capillary 0.67 1.5 1.16 storage capacity can be helpful. However, as the article outlines, this
pressure ΔPcapillary [MPa]
requires geological data from specific locations. This type of data is not
always available and largely depends on the recognition detail of the
geological structure in a given country [58].
Table 12 It should be emphasized that the assessment of hydrogen storage
Estimation results of total and working capacity, cushion gas and the amount of capacity in geological structures is usually considered in relation to the
extracted water for the Suliszewo, Konary and Sierpc structures.
potential of underground hydrogen storage. At the initial stage of
Unit Suliszewo Konary Sierpc recognizing the possibilities of UHS, the potential is presented qualita­
Total capacity Mg 445,486 70,820 2989 tively and, in our case, refers to the occurrence of favorable geological
M Nm3 4956 788 33 conditions for hydrogen storage. For most European countries, as well as
Working capacity Mg 133,623 18,992 472 certain other countries, as shown in the introductory part of this article,
M Nm3 1487 211 5
the potential for hydrogen storage has already been recognized and is of
TWhH2 4.46 0.633 0.016
Cushion gas Mg 311,863 51,828 2517 interest. At the next quantitative stage of assessment, the capacity of
M Nm3 3470 577 28 geological structures for hydrogen storage is considered and presented,
Amount of extracted water tonnes = 43,905 7485 321 based on quantitative geological data at varying degrees of detail, spe­
m3 cific to a given country, area or place. These data form the basis for
Ratio of working capacity to total % 30.0 26.8 15.2
capacity
calculating storage capacity, often using computer modeling. At this
stage, the reliability of the capacity assessment, estimated and based on
geological data, will increase in inverse proportion to the size of the area
assessment of their storage potential but also the determination of their considered. This situation is similar to the assessment of underground
capacity for hydrogen storage [37,53,65,69,125]. storage capacity for CO2 [126]. Moreover, in our case, initial consider­
The required hydrogen storage capacity will depend on several fac­ ations included the identification of the potential of UHS in seam salt
tors, including the expected demand for hydrogen in different end-user deposits [58], in salt domes [80] and in geological models for structures
sectors and the seasonality of renewable hydrogen production, based on intended for hydrogen injection in deep aquifers [75,76,127].
intermittent wind and solar power [100,101]. The growing interest in In light of the demand for storing large amounts of hydrogen, UHS
the possibility of underground hydrogen storage in relation to demand, capacity estimates are essential. This is evidenced by the increasing
considered within the 2030 and 2050 timeframes, is the subject of in­ number of publications presenting estimates of storage capacity for salt
ternational scientific projects (hyunder.eu; hystories.eu) and deposits [58,72,80,84,87,128]; conversely, fewer estimates of storage

9
R. Tarkowski et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the demand for considered structures storage capacity in the in deep aquifers in relation to the considered minimum and maximum stor­
age throughput.
Table 13
Number of structures in deep aquifers needed to secure storage throughput in
Poland, in minimum and maximum cases.
Storage demand Storage throughput Suliszewo Konary Sierpc
case [TWhH2/a]
Energy capacity per structure
[TWhH2]
4.46 0.63 0.016
Number of structures
minimum 28.65 6 45 1819
maximum 38.07 9 60 2417
capacity are made in relation to depleted oil and gas fields [74,97–99]
and deep aquifers [93,99]. The capacity estimates of the former relate to
different scales: country, region or specific location, using different
research methodologies. Moreover, the results are presented in different
units, making a comparison among them more challenging. In this
context, the novelty we presented is the analysis of UHS capacity, car­
ried out for specific geological structures and salt deposits. In the case of
deep aquifers, our results were obtained by modeling hydrogen injection
into three well-identified geological structures. This required assump­
tions, such as using the available geological data to condition the
research's reliability. This was done using storage capacity maps and
calculations, utilizing detailed geological and deposit data for bedded
salt deposits and salt domes. In both estimate cases, the obtained results
will be influenced by the quality and detail of the available geological
data specific to a given site [80].
Based on the proposed research methodology and considering actual
geological and deposit data, the authors estimated the working capacity
for hydrogen in salt caverns in two bedded rock salt deposits, seven
undeveloped salt domes and three different geological structures within
deep aquifers in Poland. In the case of bedded rock salt deposits, the
average energy capacity per cavern ranges from 0.047 to 0.094 TWhH2,
depending on the analyzed deposit. In the case of salt domes, the
average cavern capacity ranges from 0.06 to 0.2 TWhH2. The working
storage capacity for deep aquifers ranges from 0.016 to 4.46 TWhH2,
depending on the structure considered. The indicated storage capacity
values are exceptionally large with regard to a single geological struc­
ture/salt cavern. The lower storage capacity in salt caverns by com­
parison with deep aquifers can easily be compensated, if required, by the
construction of a cavern field consisting of several caverns, as is prac­
ticed for underground gas storage.
10
Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268
Regarding the bedded rock salt deposits, the number of caverns
meeting the need for storage capacity from the assumed cases, also
varies. Compared to the northern region of Poland, the twofold decrease
in the number of caverns needed in southwestern Poland results from the
rock salt deposits' different depths, thicknesses and the geothermal
gradient of these areas. Under the minimum throughput demand (28.6
TWh H2/a), there are 130 caverns in southwestern Poland and 249
caverns in northern Poland, with around 269 and 514 caverns, respec­
tively, under the maximum hydrogen throughput demand (38.1
TWhH2/a). In the case of salt domes, the implementation of the mini­
mum storage demand requires between 62 and 204 salt caverns; in
relation to the maximum hydrogen demand case, this equates to around
118–391 salt caverns. This variation in the number of caverns results
from the prevailing geological and mining conditions in individual salt
domes, forcing the construction of caverns with a smaller capacity.
Consequently, two to three times more caverns are required to cover the
same demand, as in the case of other salt domes [80]. The number of
structures in deep aquifers and salt caverns needed to meet the storage
capacity of the hydrogen demand cases considered for Poland show an
exceptionally large, albeit varied, hydrogen storage potential. In the
case of deep aquifers, the largest structure has approximately 280 times
greater energy capacity than the smallest, resulting from the structure's
size and geological and deposit parameters (porosity, permeability,
depth of location, translation into pressure and temperature). The ca­
pacity of the six best-explored structures (similar to Suliszewo) is suffi­
cient to meet the storage needs in the minimum storage throughput case
(28.6 TWhH2/a); nine analogous structures are sufficient in the
maximum (38.1 TWhH2/a) case.
In light of the results of the work of other authors regarding
hydrogen storage capacities for salt deposits and deep aquifers, some
caution should be exercised when directly comparing them with our
results. This is due to the different assumptions of individual authors
when estimating hydrogen storage capacity. The results of the estimates
presented by Caglayan et al. [72] concern the assessment of the tech­
nical potential of European subsurface salt structures in terms of size,
land eligibility and storage capacity. Due to the size of the area con­
cerned, it was necessary that these estimates be carried out using
simplified assessment criteria. Hence, very large storage capacities for
hydrogen were obtained. More relevant to our results are the results of
estimates presented for selected locations and concerning salt deposits,
e.g., for China by Wei Liu et al. [84], for the United Kingdom by Williams
et al. [87] and for Poland by Lankof et al. [80]; estimates for the deep
aquifers of Lithuania and Estonia were presented by Shogenov et al. [93]
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

and for the United Kingdom by Mouli-Castillo et al. [74].
Relating the capacity of geological structures to the needs of
hydrogen storage from the perspective of 2050 is an original approach.
The results obtained show the order of magnitude of the hydrogen
storage capacity, offered by the considered geological structures, and
relate this to the demand for storage capacity with regard to the
considered options of minimum and maximum demand for hydrogen
from the perspective of 2050, which to date, has not been presented. The
research methodology in this study allowed to estimate the hydrogen
storage capacity in Polish geological conditions, both for hydrogen
storage in salt caverns and deep aquifers, and to relate this to the de­
mand for storage from the perspective of 2050. Referring to the research
results, the number of caverns in salt deposits or structures in deep
aquifers answers the research question. Our research results also indi­
cate that the geological conditions in Poland allow for UHS in quantities
that significantly exceed demand.
The expected need for hydrogen storage volume, presented by the
authors in other European countries, as well as the research methodol­
ogy, allow these data to be used and enable similar estimates to be
carried out in other countries, taking into account the relevant geolog­
ical and mining data. The research results presented here may be helpful
to decision-makers/investors when making strategic and seasonal de­
cisions regarding the use of underground space for UHS. The presented
work constitutes a helpful tool in assessing hydrogen storage capacity
for geologists from other countries. The table detailing hydrogen de­
mand and highlighting both minimum and maximum cases for 2050
may act as a reference point for similar considerations.
6. Conclusions
The estimated hydrogen storage capacity in caverns in rock salt de­
posits and the geological structures of deep aquifers highlights the
exceedingly high potential of these structures, ranging from a dozen
GWhH2 to several TWhH2.
Hydrogen storage capacity in salt caverns in bedded rock salt de­
posits, the average energy capacity per cavern is between 0.047 and
0.094 TWhH2, which translates into 1400–2800 Mg of hydrogen, while
for salt domes, this is between 0.06 TWhH2 and 0.20 TWhH2, corre­
sponding to 1800 and 5900 Mg of hydrogen, respectively. In the case of
deep aquifers, the storage capacity, depending on the structure consid­
ered, ranges from 0.016 to 4.5 TWhH2, which translates into around
470–133,600 Mg of hydrogen.
The number of salt caverns and deep aquifer structures needed to
secure the hydrogen storage capacity included in the hydrogen
minimum and maximum throughput cases considered (28.6–38.1
TWhH2) varies substantially. Regarding the minimum case, 6 best
structures are sufficient; in the maximum case, 9 analogous deep aquifer
structures are required. The corresponding figures for the least
demanding case indicate 130 to 249 caverns in bedded rock salt deposits
and around 269–514 caverns in the maximum case. In relation to salt
domes, this requires 62 to 204 salt caverns for the minimum demanding
case and around 118–391 salt caverns for the maximum case.
The methodology presented can be used for estimates of hydrogen
storage capacity in deep aquifers and salt caverns in other countries,
considering the necessary geological and mining data. The hydrogen
storage volume and throughputs needs by 2050 in EU countries can
serve as a reference for similar considerations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Radosław Tarkowski: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Leszek Lankof: Data cura­
tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visual­
ization, Writing – review & editing. Katarzyna Luboń: Data curation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing –
review & editing. Jan Michalski: Writing – review & editing, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Radoslaw Tarkowski reports was provided by Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgment
Part of the work and results in this paper stem from the “Hystories”
project which received funding from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint
Undertaking (now Clean Hydrogen Partnership) under grant agreement
No 101007176. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the Eu­
ropean Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and
Hydrogen Europe and Hydrogen Europe Research.

Appendix 1. Methodological assumptions for determining the hydrogen storage needs

The Hystories project (hystories.eu), which has received funding from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (now Clean Hydrogen
Partnership), analyzed technical feasibility and the future role of underground hydrogen storage in aquifer and depleted field sites across Europe in
comparison to salt caverns.1
Based on detailed modeling of the integrated energy system including pan-European power and gas transport infrastructures it provides cost-
optimized size and way of operation for underground hydrogen storage has been determined. The model is defined as a linear program which
minimizes the overall system cost such as investment, variable fuel, fixed operation and maintenance as well as power and hydrogen transport cost
taking into account various technical constraints for power and hydrogen supply, storage and transport technologies. The decision variables include
on the one hand investments in new supply and storage units as well as power transmission lines and hydrogen pipelines and on the other hand power
and hydrogen production, storage input and output as well as transport across European borders. Major constraints consider maximal investment
volumes, available capacity boundaries for all technologies, must-run capacities, temporal power and hydrogen storage levels as well as energy
balance in each grid node given a predefined power and hydrogen demand. The analyzed scenarios distinguish on the one hand between domestic
hydrogen production and large hydrogen imports to European Union (EU) and on the other hand between centralized and distributed hydrogen
production and storage facilities across Europe.

1
Michalski J, Kutz C. Major results of techno-economic assessment of future scenarios for deployment of underground renewable hydrogen storages. Hystories
deliverable D5.5–2. 2022.

11
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Appendix 2. Calculation of the salt cavern working capacity

The working capacity (Cw) of stored hydrogen (in Nm3), expressed as a difference in cavern capacity between the maximum and minimum
pressures, was calculated according to the formula:
m(pmax ) − m(pmin )
Cw = (1)
ρN

where m is the amount of gas stored in the cavern [kg] expressed by the formula:
pV
m=f (2)
RT

where f (assumed as 0.8) is a part of the gross geometric volume filled with gas, T is the temperature of stored gas [K], R is the individual gas constant
(in the case of hydrogen R = 4121.73 52[J/kg⋅K]), V is cavern's volume. In the case of salt domes, the average cavern volume for individual salt domes
was determined based on the statistical analysis of Mogilno underground gas storage caverns volume and the geological structure of salt domes.2 In the
case of bedded rock salt deposits a typical design of salt cavern assumes a cylindrical shape with a target diameter Dmax, with a conical sump of 1/6
Dmax high, and a dome, which can be approximated by a cone about 1/3 Dmax high, and is expressed as:
π
V= D2max (3H − Dmax ) (3)
12

where H is the height of the cavern (equal to the average thickness of the rock salt layer reduced by 65 m left for cavern neck and safety pillars above
and under the cavern);
pmax is a maximum pressure expressed as:
pmax = gf hcem (4)

where gf is a fracturing gradient (gradient of allowable maximum pressure), hcem is the depth of the last cemented casing shoe;
pmin is a minimum pressure expressed as:
pmin = gmin p (hc − h0 ) (5)

where gminp is a gradient of minimum storage pressure (determined based rock salt strength and stress distribution in a salt cavern), hc is the depth of
the cavern center, and h0 – the depth of the center of a cavern, which can be fully emptied [m];
ρN is a density of gas in normal conditions [kg/m3]. In the case of hydrogen ρN = 0.089 kg/m3.

Appendix 3. Calculation of deep aquifers structures (traps) working capacity

The calculation of the working gas capacity of the selected structures was carried out in three main points:

1. Estimation of allowable fracturing pressure and capillary pressure of overburden for each of the structures separately.

The fracturing pressure was estimated for the injection/withdrawal well located at the top of each structure (as in the exemplary structure Konary
in Fig. 4). If a significant increase in pore pressure due to hydrogen injection from the wellbore to the formation occurred, the equation below would be
an estimate of the lower bound on Pfrac3:
3σ H,min − σ H,max − 2ηPi +σ Tw
Pfrac = 2(1− η) (6)1
where:
Pfrac – the minimum fracturing pressure (lower limit) [Pa],
σ H,min – minimum horizontal stress [Pa],
σ H,max – maximum horizontal stress [Pa],
σ Tw – tensile strength [Pa],
Pi – initial pressure in the structure intended for H2 injection, pore (reservoir) pressure [Pa],
η – poroelastic constant determined by the formula:
(1− 2ν)
η = α2(1− ν) (7)2
where:
α – Biot coefficient [− ],

2
Lankof L, Urbańczyk K, Tarkowski R. Assessment of the potential for underground hydrogen storage in salt domes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2022;160:1–17. htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112309.
3
Carnegie A, Thomas M, Efnik MS, Hamawi M, Akbar M, Burton M. An Advanced Method of Determining Insitu Reservoir Stresses: Wireline Conveyed Micro-
Fracturing. 10th Abu Dhabi Int. Pet. Exhib. Conf. SPE 78486, 2002, p. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2523/78486-ms.

12
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

ν – Poisson's ratio [− ].
The values usually adopted for reservoir rocks of underground hydrocarbon storage are α = 0.7 and ν = 0.25.4 The same values were used in the
presented research.
The minimum horizontal stress can be calculated according to the formula:
σ H,min = 1−ν ν (σV − αPi ) + αPi (8)3
Designations as in (6) and (7) formulas.
If we assume a constant value for the bulk density of the overburden rocks, the vertical stress is determined by the following equation:
σ V = ρgH (9)4
where:
ρ – bulk density of overburden rocks [kg/m3],
g – the gravitational constant [m/s2],
H – depth [m].
The calculations assumed that σH,min = σ H,max . The tensile strength σ Tw was accepted to be 6.45 MPa, the same as the average value obtained during
the testing of reservoir rock samples of Polish natural gas in the “Swarzów” underground storage facility2. The value of initial pore (reservoir) pressure
(Pi) was derived from the model created in PetraSim TOUGH2 for each of the 10 separated layers.
The caprock capillary pressure is also crucial, above which hydrogen, as a result of injection and buoyancy forces, may penetrate through the
capillaries of the caprock. The capillary pressure is defined by the Young-Laplace equation56:
Pcapillary = 2γcos(θ)
R (10)5
where:
Pcapillary – capillary pressure [Pa],
γ – surface tension between H2 and brine [N/m],
θ– contact angle of the H2-brine-rock system [◦ ],
R – characteristic pore space radius of the caprock [m].
The values for the cosine of the contact angle between H2-brine-rock system and the surface tension between water and hydrogen were taken from
Iglauer.7 This presented the relationships from which these values can be calculated for the desired depth:
γ = 0, 073 − 5, 89286 × 10− 6 H (11)6
cosθ = 0, 6784 − 0, 0002H (12)7
The pore radius was adopted based on the results obtained by Tarkowski and Wdowin8 and Tarkowski et al..9 The petrographic analysis of the pore
space distribution of the Lower Jurassic caprock made it possible to determine the pore size to be 0.1–0.01 μm in diameter. For safety reasons, a pore
diameter of 0.1 μm was used for the calculations.

2. Simulation of hydrogen injection

Simulations of hydrogen injection were considered for three successive stages, as shown in Fig. A1. It was assumed that at each stage, the amount of
injected gas (flow rate) would be constant (FI, FII, and FIII). The division into stages resulted from the possibility of increasing the amount of injected
gas after the first and second stages while not exceeding the permissible pressure in the structure. At each stage, it was expected that the bottom-hole
pressure (Pwell) value in each of the 10 separated layers would not surpass the value of the calculated fracturing pressure (Pfrac). It was also accepted
that the pressure difference caused by hydrogen injection at the top of the structure (Proof) would not go beyond the calculated caprock capillary
pressure (Pcapillary).

4
Woźniak H, Zawisza L. Geomechaniczna ocena masywu skalnego dla potrzeb bezzbiornikowego magazynowania gazu ziemnego na przykładzie PMG Swarzów
(Geomechanical evaluation of rock formation for depleted gas reservoirs – example from the Swarzów underground gas storage). Biul Państwowego Inst Geol 2011;
446:163–72.
5
Tokunaga TK, Wan J. Capillary Pressure and Mineral Wettability Influences on Reservoir CO2 Capacity. Rev. Mineral Geochemistry 2013;77:481–503. https://d
oi.org/10.2138/rmg.2013.77.14.
6
Cavanagh A. Pressurisation and Brine Displacement Issues for Deep Saline Formation CO2 Storage. IEAGHG, Report 2010/15. 2010.
7
Iglauer S. Optimum geological storage depths for structural H2 geo-storage. J Pet Sci Eng 2022;212:109498.
8
Tarkowski R, Wdowin M. Petrophysical and Mineralogical Research on the Influence of CO2 Injection on Mesozoic Reservoir and Caprocks from the Polish
Lowlands. Oil Gas Sci Technol – Rev. d'IFP Energies Nouv 2011;66:137–50. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2011005.
9
Tarkowski R, Wdowin M, Manecki M. Badania petrofizyczne i mineralogiczno- petrograficzne skał dolnej jury antykliny Zaosia i Chabowa poddanych odd­
ziaływaniu CO2. Wydaw IGSMiE PAN, Kraków 2014:1–87.

13
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

Fig. A1. Algorithm for the injection of hydrogen to the Suliszewo structure; FI, II, III – hydrogen flow in successive stages, Pwell – bottom-hole pressure, Pfrac –
fracturing pressure, Proof – pressure in the top of the structure, Pcapillary – caprock capillary pressure, M – total capacity, MI, MII, MIII – partial capacities obtained at
subsequent injection stages.
The assumptions of the length of individual stages for the considered structures are presented in Table A1.

Table A1
Lengths of individual stages for the structures under consideration.

Suliszewo Sierpc Konary

Stage I 1st day 20 days 1st month

Stage II 5 months 20th day – 20th month 1st – 8th month
Stage III 5th -24th month 20th – 24th month 8th – 24th month

As a result of such simulations, for each of the structures, the total hydrogen capacity (shown in Table 12) was obtained, which is the sum of the
partial capacities obtained in each of the injection stages.

14
R. Tarkowski et al. Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268

3. Simulation of the first hydrogen recovery cycle

For each of the considered structures, after a simulation of injection lasting 24 months (all three stages), a simulation of 6-month hydrogen re­
covery was carried out with the same flow rate as hydrogen injection in Stage III. On this basis, it was possible to estimate the total and working gas
capacity presented in the article in Table 12. The difference between total capacity and working gas is cushion gas.

References review. Energ Conver Manage 2018;165:602–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

enconman.2018.03.088.
[24] El-Shafie M, Kambara S, Hayakawa Y. Hydrogen production technologies
[1] Crotogino F, Schneider G-S, Evans DJ. Renewable energy storage in geological
overview. J Power Energy Eng 2019;7:107–54. https://doi.org/10.4236/
formations. J Power Energy 2018;232:100–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/
jpee.2019.71007.
0957650917731181.
[25] Aneke M, Wang M. Energy storage technologies and real life applications – a state
[2] Ma J, Li Q, Kühn M, Nakaten N. Power-to-gas based subsurface energy storage: a
of the art review. Appl Energy 2016;179:350–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;97:478–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.06.097.
rser.2018.08.056.
[26] Zhang Z, Huisingh D. Carbon dioxide storage schemes: technology, assessment
[3] Owen A, Garniati L. Chapter 25 - The politics of investing in sustainable energy
and deployment. J Clean Prod 2017;142:1055–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
systems. In: Letcher TM, editor. Storing Energy. Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 529–38.
jclepro.2016.06.199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803440-8/00025–7.
[27] Sgobbi A, Nijs W, De Miglio R, Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, Thiel C. How far away is
[4] Maggio G, Nicita A, Squadrito G. How the hydrogen production from RES could
hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-term decarbonisation of the European
change energy and fuel markets: a review of recent literature. Int J Hydrogen
energy system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Energy 2019;44:11371–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.121.
j.ijhydene.2015.09.004.
[5] Matos CR, Carneiro JF, Silva PP. Overview of large-scale underground energy
[28] The Future of Hydrogen. Seizing today’s opportunities. 2019. https://doi.org/
storage technologies for integration of renewable energies and criteria for
10.1787/1e0514c4-en.
reservoir identification. J Energy Storage 2019;21:241–58. https://doi.org/
[29] Andersson J, Grönkvist S. Large-scale storage of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy
10.1016/j.est.2018.11.023.
2019;44:11901–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.063.
[6] Noussan M, Raimondi PP, Scita R, Hafner M. The role of green and blue hydrogen
[30] Gabrielli P, Poluzzi A, Kramer GJ, Spiers C, Mazzotti M, Gazzani M. Seasonal
in the energy transition—a technological and geopolitical perspective.
energy storage for zero-emissions multi-energy systems via underground
Sustainability 2021;13:1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010298.
hydrogen storage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;121:109629. https://doi.org/
[7] Fonseca JD, Camargo M, Commenge JM, Falk L, Gil ID. Trends in design of
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109629.
distributed energy systems using hydrogen as energy vector: a systematic
[31] Elberry AM, Thakur J, Santasalo-Aarnio A, Larmi M. Large-scale compressed
literature review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:9486–504. https://doi.org/
hydrogen storage as part of renewable electricity storage systems. Int J Hydrogen
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.177.
Energy 2021;46:15671–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.080.
[8] Hanley ES, Deane J, Gallachóir BÓ. The role of hydrogen in low carbon energy
[32] Yue M, Lambert H, Pahon E, Roche R, Jemei S, Hissel D. Hydrogen energy
futures – a review of existing perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:
systems: a critical review of technologies, applications, trends and challenges.
3027–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.034.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;146:111180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[9] Tagliapietra S, Zachmann G, Edenhofer O, Glachant JM, Linares P, Loeschel A.
rser.2021.111180.
The European union energy transition: key priorities for the next five years.
[33] Lao J, Song H, Wang C, Zhou Y. Research on atmospheric pollutant and
Energy Policy 2019;132:950–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.060.
greenhouse gas emission reductions of trucks by substituting fuel oil with green
[10] COM/2020/301. Komun Kom DO Parlam Eur RADY, Eur Kom Ekon I Kom Reg
hydrogen: a case study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2023;48:11555–66. https://doi.
Strateg w Zakr Wodoru Na Rzecz Eur Neutralnej Dla Klimatu. https://eur-lex.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.230.
europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0301; 2020 (accessed
[34] Delmastro C, Lavagno E, Schranz L. Energy and underground. Tunn Undergr Sp
December 30, 2020).
Technol 2016;55:96–102.
[11] COM/2019/640. https://biznesalert.pl/ustawa-prawo-wodorowe-prace-minister
[35] Verga F. What’s conventional and what’s special in a reservoir study for
stwo-klimatu-trzeci-kwartal-2021-energetyka-wodor-innowacje; 2020 (accessed
underground gas storage. Energies 2018;11:1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/
December 30, 2020).
en11051245.
[12] Baykara SZ. Hydrogen: a brief overview on its sources, production and
[36] Muhammed SN, Haq B, Al Sheri D, Al-Ahmed A, Rahman MM, Zaman E. A review
environmental impact. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:10605–14. https://doi.
on underground hydrogen storage : Insight into geological sites, influencing
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.02.022.
factors and future outlook. Energy Rep 2022;8:461–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[13] Garcia DA, Barbanera F, Cumo F, Di Matteo U, Nastasi B. Expert opinion analysis
j.egyr.2021.12.002.
on renewable hydrogen storage systems potential in Europe. Energies 2016;9:
[37] Tarkowski R. Underground hydrogen storage: characteristics and prospects.
1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9110963.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;105:86–94.
[14] Abdin Z, Zafaranloo A, Rafiee A, Mérida W, Lipiński W, Khalilpour KR. Hydrogen
[38] Feldmann F, Hagemann B, Ganzer L, Panfilov M. Numerical simulation of
as an energy vector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;120:109620. https://doi.
hydrodynamic and gas mixing processes in underground hydrogen storages.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109620.
Environ Earth Sci 2016;75:1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5948-z.
[15] Osman AI, Hefny M, Abdel Maksoud MIA, Elgarahy AM, Rooney DW. Recent
[39] Hagemann B, Rasoulzadeh M, Panfilov M, Ganzer L, Reitenbach V.
advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review.
Hydrogenization of underground storage of natural gas: impact of hydrogen on
Environ Chem Lett 2021;19:797–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-
the hydrodynamic and bio-chemical behavior. Comput Geosci 2016;20:595–606.
01133-3.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-015-9515-6.
[16] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production
[40] Shi Z, Jessen K, Tsotsis TT. Impacts of the subsurface storage of natural gas and
processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:597–611. https://doi.org/
hydrogen mixtures. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:8757–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.044.
[17] Olabi AG, Saleh Bahri A, Abdelghafar AA, Baroutaji A, Sayed ET, Alami AH, et al.
[41] Assessment of the potential, the actors and relevant business cases for large scale
Large-vscale hydrogen production and storage technologies: current status and
and seasonal storage of renewable electricity by hydrogen underground storage in
future directions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:23498–528. https://doi.org/
Europe – HyUnder. Grant agreement no.: 303417. http://hyunder.eu/; 2014
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.110.
(accessed October 4, 2016).
[18] Lebrouhi BE, Djoupo JJ, Lamrani B, Benabdelaziz K, Kousksou T. Global
[42] Audigane P, Bader A-G, Gentier S, Beccaletto L, Bellenfant G. The role of the
hydrogen development - a technological and geopolitical overview. Int J
underground for massive storage of energy: a preliminary glance of the French
Hydrogen Energy 2022;47:7016–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
case. Geophys Res Abstr 2014;16:12555.
ijhydene.2021.12.076.
[43] Bai M, Song K, Sun Y, He M, Li Y, Sun J. An overview of hydrogen underground
[19] Chau K, Djire A, Khan F. Review and analysis of the hydrogen production
storage technology and prospects in China. J Petrol Sci Eng 2014;124:132–6.
technologies from a safety perspective. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.037.
13990–4007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.127.
[44] Bünger U, Michalski J, Crotogino F, Kruck O. Large-scale underground storage of
[20] European Commission. Press release REPowerEU: A plan to rapidly reduce
hydrogen for the grid integration of renewable energy and other applications. In:
dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast forward the green transition*. 2022.
Ball M, Basile A, Veziroğlu TN, editors. Compend. Hydrog. Energy; 2016.
[21] Song H, Guo H, Wang Y, Lao J, Zhu H, Tang L, et al. A novel hybrid energy system
p. 133–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-364-5.00007-5.
for hydrogen production and storage in a depleted oil reservoir. Int J Hydrogen
[45] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Borns DJ. Geologic storage of hydrogen: scaling up to meet
Energy 2021;46:18020–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.081.
city transportation demands. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:15570–82. https://
[22] Zhang Y, Tang N, Niu Y, Du X. Wind energy rejection in China: current status,
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.07.121.
reasons and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;66:322–44. https://
[46] Pottier JD, Blondin E. Mass storage of hydrogen. In: Yurum Y, editor. Hydrog.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.008.
Energy Syst. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995. p. 167–79.
[23] Abdalla AM, Hossain S, Nisfindy OB, Azad AT, Dawood M, Azad AK. Hydrogen
[47] Crotogino F, Donadei S, Bünger U, Landinger H. Large-scale hydrogen
production, storage, transportation and key challenges with applications: a
underground storage for securing future energy supplies. In: Stolten D, Grube T,
editors. 18th world Hydrog. Energy Conf. 2010 - WHEC 2010 parallel Sess. B. 4

15
R. Tarkowski et al.
storage Syst. / policy Perspect. Initiat. Co-operations. vol. 78. Essen:
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Zentralbibliothek, Verlag Schriften; 2010.
p. 10.
[48] Panfilov M. Underground storage of hydrogen. In: Situ self-organisation and
methane generation. Transp Porous Media. vol. 85; 2010. p. 841–65. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11242-010-9595-7.
[49] Panfilov M. Underground and pipeline hydrogen storage. In: Gupta RB, Basile A,
Veziroglu TN, editors. Compend. Hydrog. Energy Vol. 2 Hydrog. Storage; 2016.
p. 91–115.
[50] Kruck O, Crotogino F, Prelicz R, Rudolph T. Overview on all known underground
storage technologies for hydrogen. HyUnder report. Deliverable No.3.1. 2013.
[51] Tarkowski R, Czapowski G. Salt domes in Poland – potential sites for hydrogen
storage in caverns. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:21414–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.212.
[52] Acht A, Donadei S. Hydrogen storage in salt caverns state of the art, new
developments and R&D projects. In: SMRI fall 2012 tech. Conf. Ger., Bremen;
2012.
[53] Zivar D, Kumar S, Foroozesh J. Underground hydrogen storage: a comprehensive
review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:23436–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.08.138.
[54] Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B. Use of underground space for the storage of
selected gases (CH4, H2, and CO2) – possible conflicts of interest. Gospod
Surowcami Miner / Miner Resour Manag 2021;37:141–60. https://doi.org/
10.24425/gsm.2021.136290.
[55] Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B, Tarkowski P. Storage of hydrogen, natural gas, and
carbon dioxide - geological and legal conditions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:
20010–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.131.
[56] Heinemann N, Alcalde J, Miocic JM, Hangx SJT, Kallmeyer J, Ostertag-
Henning C, et al. Enabling large-scale hydrogen storage in porous media-the
scientific challenges. Energ Environ Sci 2021;14:853–64. https://doi.org/
10.1039/d0ee03536j.
[57] Iordache I, Schitea D, Gheorghe AV, Iordache M. Hydrogen underground storage
in Romania, potential directions of development, stakeholders and general
aspects. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:11071–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2014.05.067.
[58] Lankof L, Tarkowski R. Assessment of the potential for underground hydrogen
storage in bedded salt formation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:19479–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.024.
[59] 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.
[60] Hassanpouryouzband A, Joonaki E, Edlmann K, Haszeldine RS. Offshore
geological storage of hydrogen: is this our best option to achieve net-zero? ACS
Energy Lett 2021;6:2181–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c00845.
[61] Amid A, Mignard D, Wilkinson M. Seasonal storage of hydrogen in a depleted
natural gas reservoir. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:5549–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.02.036.
[62] Heinemann N, Booth MG, Haszeldine RS, Wilkinson M, Scafidi J, Edlmann K.
Hydrogen storage in porous geological formations – onshore play opportunities in
the midland valley (Scotland, UK). Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:20861–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.149.
[63] Hashemi L, Blunt M, Hajibeygi H. Pore-scale modelling and sensitivity analyses of
hydrogen-brine multiphase flow in geological porous media. Sci Rep 2021;11:
8348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87490-7.
[64] Iglauer S, Ali M, Keshavarz A. Hydrogen wettability of sandstone reservoirs:
implications for hydrogen geo-storage. Geophys Res Lett 2021;48. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020gl090814. e2020GL090814.
[65] Thiyagarajan SR, Emadi H, Hussain A, Patange P, Watson M. A comprehensive
review of the mechanisms and efficiency of underground hydrogen storage.
J Energy Storage 2022;51:104490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.104490.
[66] Civan F. Natural gas transportation and storage. Encycl Energy 2004;4:273–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-176480-x/00276-x.
[67] Wallace RL, Cai Z, Zhang H, Zhang K, Guo C. Utility-scale subsurface hydrogen
storage: UK perspectives and technology. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:
25137–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.05.034.
[68] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Klise GT, Borns DJ. A life cycle cost analysis framework for
geological storage of hydrogen: A user’s tool. 2011.
[69] Aftab A, Hassanpouryouzband A, Xie Q, Machuca LL, Sarmadivaleh M. Toward a
fundamental understanding of geological hydrogen storage. Ind Eng Chem Res
2022;61:3233–53. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c04380.
[70] Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B. Towards underground hydrogen storage: a review
of barriers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;162:112451. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2022.112451.
[71] 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.
[72] Caglayan DG, Weber N, Heinrichs HU, Linßen J, Robinius M, Kukla PA, et al.
Technical potential of salt caverns for hydrogen storage in Europe. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2020;45:6793–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.161.
[73] Horváth PL, Mirau S, Schneider G-S, Bernhardt H, Weiler C, Bödeker J, et al.
Update of SMRI ’ s compilation of worldwide salt deposits and salt cavern fields.
Research project report 2017–5. 2018.
[74] Mouli-Castillo J, Heinemann N, Edlmann K. Mapping geological hydrogen storage
capacity and regional heating demands: an applied UK case study. Appl Energy
2021;283:116348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116348.
16
Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268
[75] Luboń K, Tarkowski R. Numerical simulation of hydrogen injection and
withdrawal to and from a deep aquifer in NW Poland. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45:2068–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.055.
[76] Luboń K, Tarkowski R. Influence of capillary threshold pressure and injection well
location on the dynamic CO2 and H2 storage capacity for the deep geological
structure. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:30048–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2021.06.119.
[77] Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska J, Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B. Screening and
ranking framework for underground hydrogen storage site selection in Poland. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:4401–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2018.01.089.
[78] Heinemann N, Scafidi J, Pickup G, Thaysen EM, Hassanpouryouzband A,
Wilkinson M, et al. Hydrogen storage in saline aquifers: the role of cushion gas for
injection and production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:39284–96. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.09.174.
[79] Wang Lyu, Zhang Ma. A risk assessment model of coalbed methane development
based on the matter-element extension method. Energies 2019;12:3931. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en12203931.
[80] Lankof L, Urbańczyk K, Tarkowski R. Assessment of the potential for underground
hydrogen storage in salt domes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;160:1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112309.
[81] Berest P, Brouard B, Favret F, Hevin G, Karimi-Jafari M. Maximum pressure in gas
storage caverns. In: SMRI Spring 2015 Tech. Conf; 2015. p. 16.
[82] Hévin G. Underground storage of hydrogen in salt caverns. In: Eur work undergr
energy storage, Novemb 7th–8th 2019, Paris; 2019. p. 1–27.
[83] Qiu Y, Zhou S, Wang J, Chou J, Fang Y, Pan G, et al. Feasibility analysis of
utilising underground hydrogen storage facilities in integrated energy system:
case studies in China. Appl Energy 2020;269:115140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.115140.
[84] Liu W, Zhang Z, Chen J, Jiang D, Wu F, Fan J, et al. Feasibility evaluation of large-
scale underground hydrogen storage in bedded salt rocks of China: a case study in
Jiangsu province. Energy 2020;198:117348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.117348.
[85] Tarkowski R. Perspectives of using the geological subsurface for hydrogen storage
in Poland. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:347–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.10.136.
[86] Stone HBJ, Veldhuis I, Richardson RN. Underground hydrogen storage in the UK.
Geol Soc Spec Pub 2009;313:217–26. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP313.13.
[87] Williams JDO, Williamson JP, Parkes D, Evans DJ, Kirk KL, Sunny N, et al. Does
the United Kingdom have sufficient geological storage capacity to support a
hydrogen economy? Estimating the salt cavern storage potential of bedded halite
formations. J Energy Storage 2022;53:105109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2022.105109.
[88] Pfeiffer WT, Bauer S. Subsurface porous media hydrogen storage - scenario
development and simulation. Energy Procedia 2015;76:565–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.872.
[89] Carneiro JF, Matos CR, van Gessel S. Opportunities for large-scale energy storage
in geological formations in mainland Portugal. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;
99:201–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.036.
[90] Le Duigou A, Quéméré MM, Marion P, Menanteau P, Decarre S, Sinegre L, et al.
Hydrogen pathways in France: results of the HyFrance3 project. Energy Policy
2013;62:1562–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.094.
[91] Le Duigou A, Bader AG, Lanoix JC, Nadau L. Relevance and costs of large scale
underground hydrogen storage in France. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:
22987–3003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.239.
[92] Juez-Larré J, van Gessel S, Dalman R, Remmelts G, Groenenberg R. Assessment of
underground energy storage potential to support the energy transition in the
Netherlands. First Break 2019;37:57–66. https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.
n0039.
[93] Shogenov K, Shogenova A, Sliaupa S. Underground hydrogen storage in the Baltic
countries: Future outlook for Latvia and Estonia. In: 83rd EAGE Annu. Conf.
Exhib. Jun 2022. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers; 2022.
p. 1–5.
[94] Ozarslan A. Large-scale hydrogen energy storage in salt caverns. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2012;37:14265–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.07.111.
[95] Lemieux A, Sharp K, Shkarupin A. Preliminary assessment of underground
hydrogen storage sites in Ontario, Canada. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:
15193–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.113.
[96] Lemieux A, Shkarupin A, Sharp K. Geologic feasibility of underground hydrogen
storage in Canada. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:32243–59. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.244.
[97] Lackey G, Freeman GM, Buscheck TA, Haeri F, White JA, Huerta N, et al.
Characterizing hydrogen storage potential in U.S. underground gas storage
facilities. Geophys Res Lett 2023;50:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2022GL101420.
[98] Eid R, Divko LG. Preliminary investigation of the hydrogen storage potential in
the Port Campbell Embayment, Otway Basin, Victoria, Australia. J Aust Pet Prod
Explor Assoc 2023;63:305–20.
[99] Vishal V, Verma Y, Sulekh K, Singh TN, Dutta A. A first-order estimation of
underground hydrogen storage potential in Indian sedimentary basins. Geol Soc
London, Spec Publ; 2023. p. 528.
[100] Michalski J. European energy system model description. Hystories deliverable
D5.3–0. 2021.
[101] Michalski J, Zerhusen J, Bunger U. Expected techno-economic requirements for
underground renewable hydrogen storage. Hystories deliverable D5.2. 2021.
R. Tarkowski et al.
[102] Michalski J, Kutz C. Major results of techno-economic assessment of future
scenarios for deployment of underground renewable hydrogen storages. Hystories
deliverable D5.5–2. 2022.
[103] Cihlar J, Mavins D, van der Leun K. Picturing the value of underground gas
storage to the European hydrogen system June 2021. Gas Infrastruct Eur Support
by Guid 2021:54.
[104] Central Geological Database of the Polish Geological Institute. Web page. https://
geologia.pgi.gov.pl; 2023 (accessed March 7, 2023).
[105] Ślizowski K, Saługa P. Surowce mineralne Polski. Surowce chemiczne. Sól
kamienna. Kraków: Wydawnictwo CPPGSMiE PAN; 1996.
[106] Wagner R, Peryt TM. Possibility of sequence stratigraphic subdivision of the
Zechstein in the Polish Basin. Geol Q 1997;41:457–74.
[107] Wagner R. Stratygrafia osadów i rozwój basenu cechsztyńskiego na Niżu
Polskimvol. 146; 1994. Wydawnictwo PIG.
[108] Deczkowski Z, Gajewska I. Charakterystyka starokimeryjskich i laramijskich
struktur blokowych monokliny przedsudeckiej. Kwart Geol 1997;23:467–81.
[109] Czapowski G, Tarkowski R. Geology of selected salt domes in Poland and their
usefulness in constructing hydrogen storage caverns. Biul - Panstw Inst Geol 2018;
472:53–82. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.6905.
[110] Lankof L. Klasyfikacja polskich złóż soli kamiennej w aspekcie magazynowania i
składowania substancji. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Gospodarki Surowcami
Mineralnymi I Energią PAN; 2018.
[111] Tarkowski R. CO2 storage capacity of geological structures located within Polish
Lowlands’ Mesozoic formations. Gospod Surowcami Miner 2008;24:101–11.
[112] Tarkowski R, Uliasz-Misiak B. Possibilities of CO2 sequestration by storage in
geological media of major deep aquifers in Poland. Chem Eng Res Des 2006:84.
https://doi.org/10.1205/cherd.05144.
[113] Šliaupa S, Lojka R, Tasáryová 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;57:219–32. https://doi.org/10.7306/gq.1088.
[114] Tarkowski R. Potencjalne struktury geologiczne do składowania CO2 w utworach
mezozoiku Niżu Polskiego (charakterystyka oraz ranking). Studia, Rozprawy,
Monografie164; 2010.
[115] Tarkowski R, Marek S, Dziewińska L. Struktury geologiczne mezozoiku Niżu
Polskiego do podziemnego składowania CO2 – część IV. Pr Statut Oprac Arch
IGSMiE PAN 2011:1–31.
17
Applied Energy 355 (2024) 122268
[116] Tarkowski R, Marek S, Dziewińska L. Struktury geologiczne mezozoiku Niżu
Polskiego do podziemnego składowania CO2 – część V. Pr Statut Oprac Arch
IGSMiE PAN 2012:1–55.
[117] Marek S, Dziewińska L, Tarkowski R. Możliwości wykorzystania antyklin
Choszczna i Suliszewa do podziemnego składowania CO2. Przegląd Górniczy
2013;11:76–89.
[118] Luboń K. CO2 storage capacity of a deep aquifer depending on the injection well
location and cap rock capillary pressure. Gospod Surowcami Miner / Miner
Resour Manag 2020;36:173–96. https://doi.org/10.24425/gsm.2020.132557.
[119] Górecki W, Hajto M, Strzetelski W, Szczepański A. Dolnokredowy oraz
dolnojurajski zbiornik wód geotermalnych na Niżu Polskim. Przegląd Geol 2010;
58:589–93.
[120] Marek S, Tarkowski R, Dziewińska L. Studia, Rozprawy, Monografie, 164.
Kraków: Wydawnictwo IGSMiE PAN; 2010.
[121] Czapowski G, Lankof L, Serbin K, Ślizowski J, Ślizowski K, Tomaszczyk M, et al.
Możliwości magazynowania gazu ziemnego w polskich złożach soli kamiennej w
zależności od warunków geologiczno-górniczych. Kraków: IGSMiE PAN; 2011.
[122] Gąska K, Hoszowski A, Gmiński Z, Kurek A. Monografia Podziemnych Magazynów
Gazu w Polsce (Monograph of underground gas storage in Poland) (in Polish).
Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRA-JR; 2012.
[123] Doughty C, Pruess K. Modeling supercritical carbon dioxide injection in
heterogeneous porous media. Vadose Zo J 2004;3:837–47. https://doi.org/
10.2136/VZJ2004.0837.
[124] Pruess K, Oldenburg C, Moridis G. TOUGH2 user’s guide, version 2. Lawrence
Berkley Natl Lab LBNL-43134; 1999. p. 1–197.
[125] Hematpur H, Abdollahi R, Rostami S, Haghighi M, Blunt MJ. Review of
underground hydrogen storage: concepts and challenges. Adv Geo-Energy Res
2023;7:111–31. https://doi.org/10.46690/ager.2023.02.05.
[126] Gorecki C, Sorensen J, Bremer J, Ayash SC, Knudsen DJ, Holubnyak Y, et al.
Development of storage coefficients for carbon dioxide storage in deep saline
formations. 2009.
[127] Luboń K, Tarkowski R. The influence of the first filling period length and reservoir
level depth on the operation of underground hydrogen storage in a deep aquifer.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2023;48:1024–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2022.09.284.
[128] Al Rizeiqi NM, Al Rizeiqi N, Nabavi A. Potential of underground hydrogen storage
in Oman. J Adv Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 2022;27:9–31. https://doi.org/
10.37934/araset.27.1.931.