i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Bulk storage of hydrogen

D.D. Papadias*, R.K. Ahluwalia

Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL, 60439, USA

highlights

Technical aspects and economics of bulk hydrogen storage have been analyzed.

We considered underground pipes, lined rock caverns and salt caverns for storage.

Hydrogen storage in underground pipes is more economical for small H2 amounts.

The cost of salt caverns scales more favorably at larger sizes.

article info abstract

Article history: The technical aspects and economics of bulk hydrogen storage in underground pipes, lined
Received 21 April 2021 rock caverns (LRC) and salt caverns are analyzed. Hydrogen storage in underground pipes
Received in revised form is more economical than in geological caverns for useable amounts <20-t-H2. However,
24 June 2021 because the pipe material is a major cost factor, the capital and operating costs for this
Accepted 5 August 2021 storage method do not decrease appreciably with an increase in the amount of stored H2.
Available online 27 August 2021 Unlike underground pipes, the installed capital cost of salt caverns decreases appreciably
from ~$95/kg-H2 at 100 t-H2 stored to <$19/kg-H2 at 3000 t-H2 stored. Over the same scale,
Keywords: the annual storage cost decreases from ~$17/kg-H2 to ~$3/kg-H2. Like salt caverns, the
Bulk storage of hydrogen installed capital cost of lined rock caverns decreases from ~$160/kg-H2 at 100 t-H2 stored to
Underground hydrogen pipes <$44/kg-H2 at 3000 t-H2 stored. Storing >750-t useable H2 requires multiple caverns. The
Hydrogen storage in salt caverns cost of salt caverns scales more favorably with size because the salt caverns are larger than
Hydrogen storage in lined rock lined rock caverns and need to be added at a slower rate as the storage capacity is
caverns increased.
© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

At a small scale, hydrogen can be stored compactly as

Introduction compressed gas at 350e950 bar in Type 2, 3 or 4 tanks. Storing
gas at such high pressures requires the tanks to be reinforced
Massive deployment of hydrogen and fuel cells in use for power with carbon fibers or pre-stressed concrete, which results in
generation as well as transportation will necessarily require high capital and operating costs [1e4]. Typical applications of
viable methods to store hydrogen at different time and length this method are hydrogen storage on board vehicles (5e10 kg
scales. Daily and seasonal storage of hydrogen can facilitate at 350e700 bar in Type 3 or 4 tanks), buffer hydrogen storage at
large-scale penetration of renewable energy by buffering the refueling stations (100 kg in Type 2 or 4 tanks), and tube
fluctuating imbalance between power/fuel production and de- trailers for hydrogen delivery to refueling stations (1000 kg
mand. In the industrial sector, bulk storage may be required to capacity, 540 bar, Type 4 tanks) [5e8].
balance daily demands as well as to prevent interruption in At a medium scale, gaseous hydrogen could potentially be
supply when the plant undergoes maintenance. stored in spherical vessels or underground pipe facilities
[3,9,10]. Spherical vessels have been utilized in Europe to store
* Corresponding author. natural gas (NG) at a low pressure, ~20 bar, and thus require
E-mail address: [email protected] (D.D. Papadias).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.028
0360-3199/© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
34528 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

large spaces. Underground pipe facilities have been applied Salt caverns are manmade artificial cavities with some
for seasonal storage of NG in Germany and Switzerland. A new unique properties of gas tightness and inertness. Depending
pipe facility in Bocholt-Mussum (Germany) has the capacity to on the depth of the cavity, storage pressures up to 25 MPa are
store 350,000 m3 of natural gas at pressures up to 90 bar. The feasible as are large capacities exceeding 1 million m3. Pure
advantages of underground pipe storage facilities are the hydrogen has been successfully stored without losses in salt
protection from adverse weather conditions and no require- caverns at three locations [9]: three caverns in Teesside, U.K.
ment to have shaft structures, so that the land above ground since 1972 (200,000 m3), one in Clemens, TX since 1983
can be used for other purposes such as farming. (580,000 m3), and a more recent one in Moss, Texas since 2007
At larger scales, hydrogen is stored cryogenically as a (566,000 m3). Large salt formations are geographically limited,
liquid at 20 K (LH2) in spherical tanks [3,11e14]. The largest however. In the U.S., large salt bodies are primarily located in
LH2 storage facility at NASA's (National Aeronautics and the Gulf Coast [35].
Space Administration, U.S.A.) Kennedy Space Center has two Where salt formations are not available, rock caverns can
3200-m3 spheres, 21.3 m in diameter, each capable of storing provide more possibilities close to hydrogen production fa-
230 tonnes of LH2 [13]. There are several issues with LH2, cilities. Rock caverns have been constructed for storage of
however. Liquefaction of hydrogen is a costly and energy- liquid hydrocarbons and natural gas and conceptually inves-
demanding process [15e20]. State of the art liquefaction tigated for compressed air [40,41]. The caverns are constructed
plants, based on a hydrogen compression/expansion through typical mining operations. The concept of unlined
sequence with a pre-cooling step, consume 10e12 kWh/kg- rock caverns requires a competent rock with low perme-
H2, which corresponds to one third of the lower heating value ability, free of fractures and fissures. Sufficient groundwater is
(LHV) of hydrogen and incurs ~$1.40/kg-H2 levelized capital needed to seal the rock or a water curtain must be applied in
cost. That cost increases to ~$2.75/kg-H2, if the cost of elec- the surroundings for proper tightness [41]. However, the over-
tricity is included [21]. Even though the cryogenic tanks are pressurized water system required around the caverns
vacuum insulated, on a stored volume basis, the typical daily significantly increases the inflow of water to the caverns and
boil-off rate is 0.03% for the large spherical tank at the NASA may result in losses caused by dissolved gases dissolved in
complex, increasing to 1% for smaller cylindrical tanks this water. In the absence of a low permeability rock mass, a
[22,23]. Mitigation strategies exist to reduce boil-off by tight storage medium can be constructed by cladding the
placing a liquid nitrogen shield between the insulation or cavern with a liner, which can be a polymer membrane or thin
using a closed-loop helium refrigeration system with an in- steel sheets [40,42e44]. The liner seals the gas whereas the
ternal heat exchanger in the tank [24]. surrounding rock absorbs the load. The host rock must be of
Underground geological storage is expected to be the most sufficient quality as it determines the maximum storage
economic method for storage at substantial amounts of pressure and consequently the storage volume and cost of
hydrogen [4,25e29]. It has been used widely, primarily in the mining. Lined rock caverns have been successfully demon-
natural gas and oil industry, for meeting seasonal and peak strated in a pilot project in Scandinavia in early 2000 to store
demands. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) natural gas [45]; however, no commercial facility has been
estimates that there are 379 active underground fields for NG built to date.
storage in the U.S., with ~3.8 trillion cubic feet of working gas This work analyzes the technical aspects and cost effec-
capacity [30]. Eighty-eight percent of the operating storage is tiveness of different methods for bulk storage of gaseous
provided by depleted natural gas fields, 9% by aquifer reser- hydrogen. Fig. 1 identifies the storage methods of interest and
voirs and 3% by salt caverns (although they account for 15% their relevance to different applications. Confining the scope of
of the delivered capacity, as they permit the working gas the work, we only consider the large-scale gaseous storage
volume to be cycled monthly). options suitable for outages of hydrogen production plants
Conceptual studies have evaluated geological storage of (10e30 days of daily capacity) and seasonal variations in
gaseous hydrogen in depleted oil and gas fields, aquifers and salt hydrogen demand. We consider two geological storage options,
caverns [31e37]. To date, hydrogen storage has been demon- salt caverns and lined rock caverns, and one geographically
strated in salt caverns [9], but not in depleted fields or aquifers, agnostic underground pipe storage method. Bottoms-up cost
which require a caprock to seal hydrogen. The high diffusivity of analyses are performed for each case and the results are dis-
hydrogen can result in losses in porous underground forma- cussed below and in the supplemental document.
tions. In case of aquifers, hydrogen could potentially be lost by
dissolving in the large contact area with the surrounding brine.
This may be relevant, especially under circumstances of Methodology
elevated temperature and excessive pressures [34,37]. Other is-
sues with porous underground storage are the potential in- Bulk H2 storage in underground pipes
teractions between hydrogen and hydrocarbons dissolved in
reservoir rocks through microbial metabolism [37e39]. In the Fig. 2 presents a schematic of the core cost characteristics
presence of CO, CO2 or sulfates, hydrogen can convert to CH4 and constructing the pipe facility.
H2S. Other potential issues are hydrogen reacting chemically (or The main cost components are a) pipe production at the
electrochemically) with mineral deposits and initiating adverse mill, b) surface coating of the pipes, c) transmission of pipes by
changes in porosity and permeability [34]. Also, if hydrogen be- rail and truck to the staging area, d) site preparation (exca-
comes contaminated, a separation step is required to provide vation and backfilling), and e) pipe installation, welding, weld
fuel cell-quality hydrogen to the consumer. inspection, and final pressure testing for integrity.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34529

Fig. 1 e Attributes of bulk storage methods: working pressures, storage volume, storage amount and working capacity.
Geological storage: A) Salt caverns, B) Mines, C) Aquifers, D) Depleted mines, E) Hard rock caverns.

Starting with the production of the pipes, electric resis- the minimum cost. Steel plates are trimmed to proper di-
tance welded (ERW) pipes were assumed in this analysis [46]. mensions, rolled into a pipe section and resistance welded.
We also considered pipes with different diameters and wall The pipe is cut in segments of 12 m, heated in a furnace and
thicknesses (18e3600 O.D., schedule 10e100) as to determine allowed to gradually cool as to temper the steel. Pipes are

Fig. 2 e Schematic of cost components considered in the installation of underground pipe storage.
34530 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

inspected and hydrostatically tested and packaged before

Table 1 e Coating and logistic cost contribution for pipes.
delivery from the plant. Supplemental A details the cost of the
pipes for different diameters and schedules investigated in Unit/Description Value Unit
this study. The cost of the pipes, normalized in terms of mass, Pipe broker (procurement, 10 % of pipe cost
ranges between $1090/MT to $1371/MT. These estimates inspection, logistics)
compare well with the costs of similar pipes (>2400 ) used in the Packing for shipping (mill) 30 $/ton
Rail shipping 0.05 $/ton-mile
natural gas and oil industry (1080e1644 $/MT) [47]. The vari-
Truck shipping 0.12 $/ton-mile
ance is attributed to the cost of steel which accounts for ~64%
Surface coating plant distance 500 miles
of the cost of the pipe. Factory surface coating 45 $/m2
The pipes are packaged and transported from the produc- Repacking at coating plant 15 $/ton
tion mill to the nearest coating plant for corrosion resistance. Rail distance from mill to coating plant 500 miles
A three-layer polyethylene coating is sufficient for corrosion Rail distance from coating plant to 400 miles
prevention, without the need to install more expensive staging area
Truck distance from staging area to site 100 miles
cathodic protection systems. The coated pipes are transported
by rail to and from the coating plant and locally by trucks to
the storage site. For our base case scenario, a 2400 pipe schedule
60 can store hydrogen at a maximum pressure of 100 bar, and After backfilling, aboveground facilities are included in
~24,000 pipe segments are required for storing 500 tonnes of the site preparation costs, which consist of compressor,
hydrogen. This number of pipes may require purchase orders valves and pipes connecting the storage facility to an adja-
from several mills and a broker to facilitate the procurement, cent hydrogen production facility. The inlet suction pressure
inspection and other logistics. The cost contribution of coating from the hydrogen plant is at 20 bar, and H2 is compressed to
and logistics [47] are summarized in Table 1. 100 bar with two 802 kW compressors. Aboveground capital
Site preparation costs include expenses for land acquisi- costs and operational expenses were estimated by the
tion, site clearing, grubbing and disposal of debris and exca- hydrogen delivery scenario model [50]. Table 2 gives the
vation and backfilling of the pipe network. The pipes are capital, operational and maintenance costs for the above-
covered by 1.2 m of soil, and pipe strings are spaced 80 cm ground facility.
apart as necessary clearance for welding. A land area of 110
acres is required for our base case storage facility, and a total Bulk H2 storage in underground lined rock caverns (LRC)
volume of 1,055,040 cubic yard (cy) of soil is excavated. Land
clearing costs were estimated from guides for road con- Lined rock caverns have as to date not been used for storage in
struction (USDA forest service) [48]. The cost factors used are industrial scale, however, pilot projects have confirmed its
based on the use of the hydraulic excavator for clearing/pio- viability for NG storage with sufficient construction details
neering. The land was assumed to primarily consist of tops [45,51,52]. Fig. 3a shows the principle cost features of this type
and limbs (40%), logs (35%) and stumps (25%), which resulted of storage system and consists of four parts: excavation of the
in a total volume of 30 CCF/acre of classification.1 The total underground facility including access tunnels and the cavern
cost of the right of way for clearance was estimated at a base enclosure, installation of the liner and concrete surrounding
rate of $2830/acre. A topographical factor of 10% was added to the liner and the cavern forming the storage facility and the
the base rate (less than 20% slope) and an additional 65% for aboveground facilities including compressor, pipes and valves.
disposal and clearing of the debris. Costs for site excavation, The excavation of the rock cavern consists of one or mul-
hauling of soil and backfilling (after pipes have been installed) tiple cavern systems with an arrangement of shafts and tun-
were determined from the cost of equipment, labor rate and nels joining them with the ground surface. The excavation is
machinery efficiency and diesel fuel costs. In addition, a land performed by conventional drill-and-blast operations [52,53].
cost of $50,000/acre was assumed; 25% of the site cost was The cross-sections of the shafts and tunnels are 25 m2. The
attributed to engineering costs, logistics and project contin- total length of the tunnels is 760 m (a 400 m access tunnel, two
gency. A total levelized cost for the site was estimated to 80 m tunnels connecting to the lower and upper part of the
$29.83/cy. The costs and assumptions for site preparation are dome and a 200 m shaft). The tunneling operations also
detailed in Supplemental A. include widenings periodically as to facilitate the turning of
Pipes are installed at the site before backfilling. Pipe mining vehicles. This adds another 20% to the total length of
installation costs are associated with the welding of individual the tunnels. Rock support is used in sections of the tunnels
pipes segments (12-m long) and end domes, radiographic weld (30%) with grouted rebar. Grouting is also performed to
inspection and hydraulic pressure testing for all pipe strings. minimize groundwater leaking and allows for more efficient
Welding all the segments of pipelines (process efficiency, and pumping equipment. The caverns are excavated as hemi-
cost) is adopted after the work by Fekete et al. [49]. A total spherical cylinders and reinforced with rock bolting and
welding cost of $1192/joint was determined, 93% of which was concrete. The dimensions of a cavern capable of storing 500
attributed to labor. The methodology and cost of pipe instal- tonne of H2 at a pressure of 150 bar are 62 m in diameter and
lation is detailed in Supplemental A. 71 m in height. The excavated rock is assumed to have no
monetary value, and the rocks are trucked 10 miles to remote
deposit sites. Cost contributions of mining the tunnels and
1
Timber volumes are generally expressed in CCF (100 cubic cavern with additional work to fortify the walls are detailed in
feet). Supplemental B.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34531

lining. This is determined by the rock mass rating (RMR) and

Table 2 e Aboveground capital and O&M costs for
thus a geological survey is imperative to locate the best site for
underground pipe storage. Cost of hydrogen cushion gas
evaluated at $5/kg, labor cost of 33.5 h and electricity at the cavern [56,57]. The last panel in Fig. 3b correlates the RMR
5.74 cents/kWh. method with the maximum cavern storage pressure. For our
base case scenario, we consider that the cavern is located
Unit/Description Value Unit
150 m below the surface and assume an RMR value to the rock
Storage capacity 500,000 kg
of 50, which limits the maximum storage pressure to 150 bar.
Cushion gas needed 46,613 kg
Compressor cost (installed) 3,249,872 $
The costs associated in commissioning the cavern to a fully
Pipes, valves and metering 1,079,173 $ functional storage system are detailed in Supplemental B.
Cushion gas 233,064 $ Finally, the above-bound facility consists of a compressor
Aboveground costs 4,562,109 $
and balance of plant components (e.g. piping and valves)
similar to that for pipe storage systems. We assume that the
Labor cost 246,769 $/year
hydrogen production facility is located one mile from the
Maintenance cost 173,162 $/year
Electricity cost 11,038 $/year storage site and a pipeline is constructed with right-of-way
Property tax 55,074 $/year associated costs [58]. Table 3 presents the capital, opera-
Insurance 91,242 $/year tional and maintenance costs for the aboveground facility.
Total O&M 577,285 $/year
Bulk H2 storage in underground salt caverns

Fig. 3b shows some important technical details of the Salt caverns are especially suitable for low-cost hydrogen
construction and structural properties for LRC storage. The storage in extensive quantities, but are geographically limited
lining represents a key component to ensure a proper gas to a few locations; see Fig. 4. Favorable locations in the U.S. are
storage and structural integrity. The steel liner contains the found in the Gulf Coast and the northeast.
gas whereas the sealing layers transmits the pressure load to Fig. 5 shows the main cost contributions considered in the
the surrounding rock [42,54,55]. The lining consists of 15-mm development of the salt cavern storage. Costs are associated
thick mild steel sheets which are welded together to form the with leaching out the cavern with fresh water at sufficient
inner vessel of the dome. The concrete layer (2-m thick), depth and size, brine transportation and disposal costs and
reinforced with a rebar lattice, distributes the pressure load to the surface-bound facility.
the surrounding rock. A drainage arrangement of perforated Before the salt cavern is constructed, a geological survey is
pipes is also mounted around the cavern before the concrete is necessary to ensure that the mining will not threaten the
poured as to remove water accumulating in the lining section. integrity of the containing salt. Three-dimensional mapping
The maximum pressure of the gas that can be stored depends and seismic surveying are common geophysical methods. An
on the cavern depth and the quality of the rock mass [42]. A exploratory drilling is finally conducted to explore porosity and
depth of 150 m can typically a withstand pressure of 300 bar permeability, stress measurements and the presence of corro-
and higher preventing the rock mass from uplifting [52]. The sive substances and the adherence of the salt dome [9,59].
surrounding rock mass must be strong enough as to not be Meeting all requirements, the underground cavern can be
deformed by the pressure load and cause fracture of the created using a process known as solution mining or leaching.

Fig. 3 e a. LRC main cost factors. b. LRC main technical factors.

34532 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

Table 3 e Aboveground capital and O&M costs for LRC Table 4 e Available pipe sizes and maximum allowable
storage. Cost of hydrogen cushion gas evaluated at $5/kg, pressure (atm).
labor cost of 33.5 h and electricity at 5.74 cents/kWh. Schedule Pipe Outer Diameter
Unit/Description Value Unit 00
18 2400 3200 3600
Storage capacity 500,000 kg
20 43 39 39 34
Cushion gas needed 84,085 kg
40 77 71 53 47
Compressor cost (installed) 3,535,794 $
60 103 100 e e
Pipe to H2 production facility 749,130 $
80 117 114 e e
Valves and instrumentation 112,370 $
100 140 139 e e
Cushion gas 420,423 $
Land cost 313,769 $

Aboveground costs 5,131,486 $ Solution mining technology converts a simple borehole into a
Labor cost 252,000 $/year storage cavern through the injection and extraction of water.
Maintenance cost 150,047 $/year First, a borehole from the surface to the final required depth is
Electricity cost 11,982 $/year drilled through the salt formation. This process is very similar
Property tax $ insurance 102,630 $/year
to the established oil and gas drilling practice [9,60,61]. After
Total O&M 516,659 $/year drilling, an annular pipe is fitted through the borehole and
lowered to the middle of the cavity. To form the salt cavern,
fresh water is pumped through the inner tubing to the bottom
of the borehole. The water dissolves the salt and saturated
brine is removed through the other pipe, leaving an area of
free space. Water supply for the leaching process is assumed
to be available from a nearby well (2 miles), and pipelines are
required to supply the water during the leaching operation.
Approximately 7e8 m3 of fresh water is needed to dissolve
1 m3 of salt [62]. Brine is stored on site for up to 2 days of
operation and is disposed by trucks into deep Class II wells
[63,64]. It is possible to recover salt from the brine as a
chemical feedstock (e.g., for the chlor-alkali process); how-
ever, the facilities need to be in close proximity to the storage
site for this to be economically viable. In absence of Class II
wells, a more costly disposal would be trucking the brine to
the nearest wastewater treatment plant [65].
Upon completion of the cavern structure, preparation is
required to convert from brine to gas storage. Before any gas is
Fig. 4 e Location of major salt deposits in the United States.
introduced, an initial mechanical integrity test (MIT) is per-
Redrawn after [22]. ND¼North Dakota, TX ¼ Texas,
formed to confirm gas tightness of the uppermost salt and the
NM¼New Mexico.
well completion. The last step in the construction of the
cavern is the debrining process, which essentially uses gas

Fig. 5 e Underground salt cavern technical and main cost factors.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34533

Fig. 6 e Cost of 500-t H2 underground pipe storage facility.

pressure to displace the brine contained in the cavern at the specifications. This adds an operational cost of $44,783/year in
completion of solution mining. Caverns constructed in salt desiccant drying costs.
domes are typically 60e240 m in length, and there is a great
deal of flexibility in positioning a cavern depth down to about Life-cycle costs
1800 m. The storage pressure increases by 0.156 bar per meter
of depth ( [60]. For our base scenario, the cavern was placed For consistent, transparent and comparable financial results
765 m belowground, requiring a gas pressure of 120 bar to across all options, storage life-cycle costs were evaluated using
prevent creep of the cavern walls. The cost to construct a salt the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) standard economic tool
cavern is detailed in Supplemental C. (H2A) and assumptions. H2A is a financial spreadsheet evalu-
The surface-bound facility is identical to the LRC and pipe ating the net present value of a capital investment and is freely
storage facilities, as discussed previously. The exception is available for download at DOE's website [66]. The following set of
that a water-wash and gas-drying step is needed for hydrogen key economic parameters was selected for our analyses: a)
purity control. The cavern contains a heel of brine in the sump reference year: 2019, b) after-tax internal rate of return: 10%, c)
(bottom layer of debris), which cannot be removed during the inflation rate: 1.9%, d) economic analysis period: 30 years, e) 15
debrining process, therefore gas withdrawn from the cavern year depreciation schedule (MARCS)2 with an effective total tax
will be saturated with salt during an initial period of opera-
2
tion. The water-wash column removes entrained salt, and the The modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) is a
dryer (sorbents) removes water in order to meet H2 quality depreciation system used for assessing taxes in the U.S. Federal and
state taxes are based on year 2017 schedules.
34534 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

rate of 38.9% and f) electricity cost: $0.0574/kWh. Indirect costs

Table 5 e Breakdown of capital costs ($/kg-H2 stored) for
are also included as fraction of the total installed underground
underground pipe storage.
cost. We have used the default H2A financial assumptions of
Pipe Diameter (inches) 18 24 32 36
15% for engineering, 10% for contingency, and 3% for permitting.
Schedule 60 60 40 40
Maximum storage pressure (atm) 103 100 53 47

Mill cost ($/kg) 275 259 288 294 Results and discussion
Coating ($/kg) 67 53 71 71
Shipping ($/kg) 12 12 11 12 Bulk H2 storage in underground pipes
Welding ($/kg) 59 67 51 52
Weld inspection and hydrostatic testing ($/kg) 92 54 55 49
Site preparation ($/kg) 88 62 79 79
We investigated the cost of an underground pipe facility
Aboveground facilities ($/kg) 9 9 9 9 capable of storing 500 t-H2. We considered API 5L Grade X52
pipes (52 ksi minimum yield strength, 66 ksi tensile strength)
Total Cost ($/kg) 602 516 564 566
available in 18e3600 outer diameter (OD) and Schedules 20, 40,

Fig. 7 e Cost of 500-t H2 underground lined rock cavern facility.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34535

Table 6 e Breakdown of capital costs ($/kg-H2 stored) for underground LRC.

Maximum Storage Pressure (atm) 75 100 150 200 250 300
Dome water volume (m3) 116,741 81,458 51,630 38,396 30,925 26,130
Concrete volume (m3) 26,151 20,724 15,454 12,783 11,134 10,001

Shaft ($/kg) $11.2 $11.2 $11.2 $11.2 $11.2 $11.2

Dome ($/kg) $54.0 $38.4 $25.0 $19.0 $15.6 $13.4
Liner ($/kg) $9.1 $7.2 $5.4 $4.6 $3.9 $3.6
Concrete ($/kg) $8.5 $6.7 $5.0 $4.2 $3.6 $3.3

Total underground costs ($/kg) $82.8 $63.5 $46.6 $38.9 $34.3 $31.4

Engineering ($/kg) $12.4 $9.5 $7.0 $5.8 $5.1 $4.7

Contingency ($/kg) $8.3 $6.4 $4.7 $3.9 $3.4 $3.1
Permitting ($/kg) $2.5 $1.9 $1.4 $1.2 $1.0 $0.9
Geological survey ($/kg) $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3

Total other costs ($/kg) $25.5 $20.1 $15.4 $13.2 $11.9 $11.1

Compressor ($/kg) $5.0 $5.8 $7.1 $7.8 $8.5 $9.2

Piping, instrumentation, valves ($/kg) $0.9 $1.2 $1.7 $2.2 $2.7 $3.1
Cushion gas ($/kg) $1.0 $0.7 $0.4 $0.3 $0.3 $0.2
Land cost ($/kg) $0.7 $0.7 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6

Total aboveground costs ($/kg) $7.6 $8.3 $9.8 $11.0 $12.1 $13.1

Total cost ($/kg) $115.8 $91.9 $71.8 $63.1 $58.3 $55.5

60, 80 and 100. We followed the ASME B31.12 code for $2.17/kg-H2 for Schedule-60 pipes, nearly 95% of which is due
hydrogen piping and pipelines to determine the maximum to capital expenditure CAPEX levelized assuming a 10%
permissible pressure considering the nominal pipe OD, nom- annual rate of return. Because the pipe material cost is a major
inal wall thickness, longitudinal joint factor, design factor, contributor, we did a single-variable study using the historical
material performance factor and minimum yield strength. swings in line prices: $1127/ton, $803/ton and $1360/ton for
Table 4 lists the maximum permissible storage pressures after current, historical low, and historical high prices, respectively.
a 12.5% allowance in nominal wall thickness. These historical swings cause the H2 cost to decrease by $0.30/
Fig. 6 presents the capital cost of the underground storage kg or increase by $0.22/kg. Clearly, the underground pipe
system using 2400 -OD pipes of different schedules. It shows storage method is unlikely to find wide deployment consid-
that the capital cost is lowest, $516/kg-H2 stored, for a storage ering that the target cost of dispensed H2 is $4/kg.
facility with 2400 -OD, Schedule 60 pipes. This system can be Table 5 summarizes the detailed breakdown of perfor-
configured with 300 parallel pipe strings, each string 3150 ft in mance (storage pressures, total equivalent length) and cost
length for a total of 180 miles equivalent length, requiring 110 parameters for storage systems with different pipe ODs and
acres of land. The majority the cost, 63%, is due to delivered schedules that lead to least capital investment. In general, the
pipe cost factors: 50% for pipe material and milling, 10% for cost parameters vary with ODs in a non-linear fashion, but the
coating and <3% for shipping. Pipe installation accounts for storage system with 2400 OD, Schedule 60 pipes is an optimal
23% of the total cost: 11% for welding, 10% hydrostatic pres- combination of shortest length and least pipe material leading
sure testing and >1% for weld inspection and joint coating. to the smallest costs for milling, coating, weld inspection and
Site preparation represents 14% of the overall cost: 8% for site hydrostatic testing and site preparation.
excavation and backfilling, 4% for land and projects and 2% for
aboveground facilities. Bulk H2 storage in underground lined rock caverns
Because the majority of the capital cost is due to
manufacturing of pipes, followed by welding, pressure testing, We conducted a study to estimate the cost of storing 500 t-H2
site excavation and backfilling, minimizing the number of in an underground LRC facility varying the maximum storage
pipes and/or pipe mass is important in reducing costs. For pressure while holding the minimum pressure as constant at
example, choosing a Schedule 20 rather than Schedule 60 pipe 20 bar. The results of the study are summarized in Fig. 7 and
increases the capital cost by 59%: 26% due to higher delivered Table 6. Fig. 7 shows that the capital cost decreases at higher
pipe cost, 13% due to higher pipe installation cost and 20% due storage pressures; however, the rate of decrease slows at
to higher site preparation cost. Similarly, choosing a Schedule pressures above 150e200 bar.
100 rather than Schedule 60 pipe slightly increases the capital At 150-bar storage pressure, the underground facility ac-
cost by 13%: 8% due to higher delivered pipe cost (more pipe counts for 66% of the total capital cost including 34% for
mass), 8% due to higher pipe installation cost (more expensive cavern excavation, 16% for tunnels, 8% for liner and 8% for
welding), offset by 3% smaller site preparation cost (fewer concrete. The aboveground facility represents 14% of the total
pipes, smaller land area). cost including 11% for compressor, 3% for piping and instru-
Fig. 6 includes the levelized the cost of underground pipe mentation and <1% for cushion gas. The miscellaneous items
storage on a 50 tonnes per day (tpd)basis. This levelized cost is represent 21% of the total cost including 10% for engineering,
34536 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

Fig. 8 e Cost of 500-t H2 underground salt cavern facility.

6% for contingency, 3% for survey and 2% for permitting. Thus, Table 6 provides a detailed breakdown of the major cost
cavern excavation, tunnels, compressor and engineering are components, grouped as underground facility, aboveground
the biggest cost items. facility, and miscellaneous, for different storage pressures. For
Lowering the storage pressure from 150 bar to 75 bar re- the purpose of this study, the costs of the underground tunnel,
sults in 61% higher capital cost, 82% of which is due to the survey and land do not vary with storage pressure.
higher cost of the underground facility which has more than Fig. 7 includes the levelized the cost of underground LRC
double the storage volume. The aboveground facility cost is storage on a 50 tpd basis. The levelized cost is $0.36/kg-H2 for
~3% lower primarily because of a smaller compressor bust; 1a 50-bar storage pressure, nearly 85% of which is due to the
this cost saving is offset by a 14% increase in the miscella- capital expenditures levelized assuming 10% annual rate of
neous costs for engineering services and contingency. return. Within the parameters of this study, the levelized cost
The capital cost is smallest at 300-bar storage pressure. is $0.0.05/kg-H2 smaller for a 100-bar storage pressure and
Compared to the 150-bar storage system, the required storage $0.0.05/kg-H2 larger for a 250-bar storage pressure. Compared
volume is about 50% smaller resulting in a 21% cost saving for to underground pipe storage, the capital cost of underground
the underground facility (cavern excavation, liner and con- LRC is 90% smaller and the levelized cost is 85% smaller.
crete), and the 5% higher cost for the aboveground facility However, finding a suitable rock mass strength that is able to
(compressor and piping) is nearly offset by 6% saving in the contain the hydrogen gas at sufficiently high pressures, may
miscellaneous costs for engineering and contingency. be restricted and limited geographically.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34537

Table 7 e Breakdown of capital costs ($/kg-H2 stored) for underground salt caverns.
Cavern Roof Depth (ft) 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Maximum storage pressure (atm) 70 100 120 140 170 190
Minimum storage pressure (atm) 22 29 35 41 47 53
Cavern water volume (m3) 125,897 96,185 78,294 67,634 59,287 52,973
Cushion gas (%) 31.1 31.1 30.7 30.8 30.8 31.0

Drill þ casing ($/kg) $3.3 $4.4 $5.6 $6.7 $7.8 $8.9

Leaching ($/kg) $5.1 $4.5 $4.1 $4.0 $3.8 $3.8
Mechanical integrity test ($/kg) $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3

Total construction costs $10.7 $11.2 $11.9 $12.9 $13.9 $15.0

Geological survey ($/kg) $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3

Engineering ($/kg) $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $2.1 $2.2
Contingency ($/kg) $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5
Permitting ($/kg) $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4

Total engineering costs ($/kg) $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.9 $6.2 $6.5

Brine transportation ($/kg) $7.0 $5.3 $4.3 $3.7 $3.3 $2.9

Brine disposal ($/kg) $7.0 $5.3 $4.3 $3.7 $3.3 $2.9

Total brine disposal costs ($/kg) $13.9 $10.6 $8.7 $7.5 $6.6 $5.9

Compressor ($/kg) $5.0 $5.7 $6.3 $6.9 $7.4 $7.8

Piping and instrumentation ($/kg) $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0
Cushion gas ($/kg) $1.4 $1.4 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3
Land cost ($/kg) $0.8 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.6

Total aboveground costs ($/kg) $8.1 $8.8 $9.4 $9.9 $10.4 $10.8

Total cost ($/kg) $38.0 $36.0 $35.6 $36.2 $37.0 $38.1

Bulk H2 storage in underground salt caverns compressors and deeper caverns that lead to additional costs
for bore and production tubing.
We conducted a study to estimate the cost of storing 500 t-H2 in Fig. 8 includes the levelized the cost of underground salt
underground salt caverns at depths between 500 and 1200 m. cavern storage on a 50 tpd-H2 basis. The levelized cost is $0.21/
The results of the study are summarized in Fig. 8 and Table 7 as a kg-H2 for a 120-bar storage pressure, nearly 75% of which is
function of the storage pressure that depends on the cavern due to the capital expenditures levelized assuming a 10%
depth. The study treats 30% of the storage capacity as minimum annual rate of return. Within the parameters of this study, the
cushion gas. Fig. 8 shows a general trend of the underground and levelized cost is $0.0.02/kg-H2 smaller if the cost for brine
aboveground facilities cost increasing, and the brine disposal disposal can be avoided because of an existing market de-
cost decreasing, with higher pressure. The net result is that the mand, and it is $0.21/kg-H2 higher if the brine disposal cost is
capital cost varies narrowly between $35/kg-H2 and $38/kg-H2 $2/bbl rather than the default value of $0.50/bbl. Brine dispo-
with a shallow minimum at a 120-bar storage pressure. sition as affected by local political conditions and environ-
At a 120-bar storage pressure, the underground facility mental concerns introduce a financial uncertainty in any
accounts for 50% of the total capital cost including 16% for drill project using salt caverns.
and casing, 13% for geological survey and mechanical integrity Comparing the results in Figs. 6e8, the capital cost of the
testing, 12% for brine leaching and 9% for engineering and underground salt cavern option is 93% smaller than under-
permitting. The aboveground facility represents 27% of the ground pipe storage and 51% smaller than underground LRC
total capital cost including 18% for compressor, 5% for piping storage. Similarly, the levelized cost of the underground salt
and drying and 4% for cushion gas. The brine-related activities cavern option is 90% smaller than underground pipe storage
represent 25% of the total capital cost including 12% for and 40% smaller than underground LRC storage. However, like
transportation, 12% for disposal and 1% for brine storage. the LRC storage option, the applicability of underground salt
Thus, the major cost factors are related to brine leaching, caverns is geographically restricted, and may require a
handling (transportation) and disposal followed by detailed environmental impact study.
compressor, and salt cavity formation (drill and casing,
integrity testing and engineering). Bulk H2 storage: outlook
Table 7 provides a detailed breakdown of the major cost
components grouped as underground facility construction, We conducted a study to investigate the effect of economy of
engineering, brine handling and aboveground facility. Higher scale on the cost of the three storage options analyzed using
storage pressures require smaller cavern volumes and incur working storage pressures of 100e8 bar for underground
lower costs for brine leaching, transportation and disposal. pipes, 200-30 bar for LRC and 120e28 bar for salt caverns. A
However, higher storage pressures also require larger lined rock cavern is situated 150-m deep and can hold up to
34538 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

Fig. 9 e Installed capital cost and lifetime storage cost: scaling with useable amount of stored H2.

600-t H2; a salt cavern is located at a 800-m depth and can Lined rock and salt caverns show substantial reduction
hold up to 1000-t H2. Two or more caverns are placed in in cost as the storage capacity is increased. The salt caverns
service if the required storage capacity exceeds the are more cost-effective than lined rock caverns, although
maximum capacity of a single cavern. The results of the the two options are never available at the same location.
study are summarized in Fig. 9 in terms of the installed Also, salt caverns scale better because of their higher
capital cost and annual storage cost ($/kg-H2 stored) over a maximum H2 storage capacity, i.e., salt caverns need to be
30-year lifetime of the storage facilities. The storage cost added at a slower rate than lined rock caverns as the storage
includes the levelized capital cost assuming a 10% annual capacity is increased.
rate of return and recurring operating (labor and utilities) and
maintenance costs and can be calculated from the following
correlation using the coefficients in Table 8. Conclusions
 
2
Annual Cost ¼ exp aðlnðmÞÞ  blnðmÞ þ c Massive deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
will require viable methods to store hydrogen at different time
Fig. 9 shows only a small effect of the economy of scale on and length scales. We have analyzed the technical aspects
the installed capital and annual storage costs of the under- and economics of bulk hydrogen storage in underground
ground pipe storage option, i.e., a less than 10% cost reduction pipes, lined rock caverns and salt caverns in different quan-
in scaling useable H2 from 1 tonne to 20 tonnes. As discussed tities, 1e3000 tonnes, equivalent to <1e60 days of storage for a
earlier, fabrication of coated pipes is a major cost factor that 50 tonnes per day production facility. The main conclusions
does not benefit much from manufacturing at high volumes. are summarized below.
As indicated in Fig. 8, underground pipes can be more
economical than geological facilities for useable H2 storage
Hydrogen storage in underground Type-1, API 5L X52 pipes
amounts less than 20 tonnes. However, the capital (~$600/kg- is more economical than in geological caverns for useable
H2 stored) and annual (~$90/kg-H2 stored) costs are far too amounts <20-t-H2. At ~$560/kg-H2 stored, the estimated
high for underground pipe storage to be a viable storage so- capital cost is high as is the annual cost at ~$84/kg-H2
lution for large quantities of hydrogen. This option could be stored. Because the pipe material is a major cost factor, the
more applicable when storing hydrogen at smaller scales, for capital and operating costs for this storage method do not
instance to meet daily peak demands. decrease appreciably with an increase in the amount of
stored H2.

Unlike underground pipes, the installed capital cost of salt
caverns decreases appreciably from ~$95/kg-H2 at 100 t-H2
Table 8 e Coefficients for annual cost ($/kg-H2 stored) stored to <$19/kg-H2 at 3000 t-H2 stored. Over the same
correlations: m is tonnes of stored H2. scale, the annual storage cost decreases from ~$17/kg-H2 at
Storage a b c 100 t-H2 stored to ~$3/kg-H2 at 3000 t-H2 stored.
Underground pipe storage 0.001559 0.035313 4.5183

Like salt caverns, the installed capital cost of lined rock
Underground lined rock caverns 0.092286 1.5565 8.4658 caverns decreases from ~$160/kg-H2 at 100 t-H2 stored to
Underground salt caverns 0.085863 1.5574 8.1606 <$44/kg-H2 at 3000 t-H2 stored. Over the same scale, the
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34539

annual storage cost decreases from ~$26/kg-H2 at 100 t-H2 [p10] Excavatorf - https://www.pikrepo.com/feevg/black-
stored to ~$7/kg-H2 at 3000 t-H2 stored. and-yellow-front-loader-under-blue-sky.

Storing >750-t useable H2 requires multiple caverns. [p11] Site leveling and clearancef - https://www.pickpik.
Hydrogen storage in salt caverns is more economical than com/construction-site-heavy-equipment-dirt-mover-
in lined rock caverns. Also, the cost of salt caverns scales construction-equipment-industrial-146115.
more favorably with size because the salt caverns are [p12] Aboveground facilitya e https://www.flickr.com/
larger than lined rock caverns and need to be added at a photos/royluck/3519496307.
slower rate as the storage capacity is increased. [p13] Pipe weldingf Courtesy by Gala Amarando https://
pixabay.com/photos/work-gas-welder-pipe-work-man-
4304178/
Declaration of competing interest [p14] Weld inspectiond - https://nara.getarchive.net/
media/staff-sgt-abraham-malit-right-hometown-angeles-
The authors declare that they have no known competing city-philippines-and-airman-c602ed.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have [p15] Pressure testa - Courtesy by Flickr, https://flic.kr/p/
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. bwrVX9.
[p16] Tunnel excavationa - Courtesy by Flickr, https://flic.
kr/p/nNu1xa.
Acknowledgments [p17] Cavern excavation and drainagea - Courtesy by Flickr,
https://flic.kr/p/dQAE58.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s [p18] Liner and concrete installationa - Courtesy by Flickr,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Mr. Jesse https://flic.kr/p/dQGfnh.
Adams of the Office of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies [p19] Above ground facilitya - Courtesy by Flickr, https://
was the Technology Development Manager for this study. flic.kr/p/dQGfRG.
Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy [p20] Brine pipelinef e Courtesy by Deeann Arant. https://
Office of Science laboratory, is operated by UChicago pixy.org/4806357/
Argonne, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. [p21] Brine transport by truckf - https://pixabay.com/
photos/truck-tanker-water-carrier-metal-945364/
[p22] Waste water treatment plantf e courtesy by Jarmo-
Appendix A. Supplementary data louk,https://pixabay.com/photos/treatment-plant-
wastewater-refinery-2826988/
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [p23] Salt productiong - https://commons.wikimedia.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.028. wiki/File:Salt_production_Uyuni.JPG.
[p24] Chlor-alkali processd - https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/File:Cell_room_of_a_chlorine-caustic_soda_plant.JPG.
Attributions [p25] Brine disposal in Class II wellsd - https://www.epa.
gov/uic/class-ii-oil-and-gas-related-injection-wells#well_use
[p1] Natural gas spherical vessela e Marco Verch (https://flic.
a
kr/p/Zj1NPH). Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).
b
[p2] NG Pipe Storage - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0).
c
134605195@N07/19553187102. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0).
d
[p3] Liquid hydrogen tankc. e Heather Paul (https://flic.kr/ Public domain
f
p/dqDHjF). Free for commercial use
g
[p4] Geological storaged - https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 2.0).
storage/basics/
[p5] Tunnel excavationa e Wikimedia Commons File:SAS references
9837 (8427326154). jpg.
[p6a] Pipe millf - https://pixabay.com/photos/bloom-
rolling-mill-rail-hot-product-1578783/ [1] Feng Z. Steel concrete composite vessel for 875 bar stationary
[p6b] Pipes from millf - https://pixabay.com/photos/pipe- hydrogen storage. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells AMR; 2015.
metal-tube-steel-industry-1885281/ p. 2015.
[p7] Pipe transmission by raild - CC0 Public Domain: https:// [2] Hua TQ, Ahluwalia RK, Peng JK, Kromer M, Lasher S,
www.publicdomainpictures.net/ McKenney K, et al. Technical assessment of compressed
hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.
en/view-image.php?image ¼ 305824&picture ¼ pipes-on-
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:3037e49. https://doi.org/
train.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.11.090.
[p8] Pipe coatingd - www.loc.gov/pictures/item/al1143. [3] Tietze V, Luhr S, Stolten D. Bulk storage vessels for
photos.314669p. compressed and liquid hydrogen. Hydrog. Sci. Eng. Mater.
[p9] Pipe transport by truckf - https://pixabay.com/photos/ Process. Syst. Technol. 2016:659e89. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pipeline-plumbing-pipes-18-wheeler-5292027/ 9783527674268.ch27.
34540 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1

[4] Elberry AM, Thakur J, Santasalo-Aarnio A, Larmi M. Large- Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:4524e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
scale compressed hydrogen storage as part of renewable j.ijhydene.2010.02.109.
electricity storage systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy [21] Conelly E, Penev M, Egowainy A, Hunter C. Current status of
2021;46:15671e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/ hydrogen liquefaction costs. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
j.ijhydene.2021.02.080. Program Record, Record #; 2019. p. 19001.
[5] Sapre S, Vyas M, Pareek K. Impact of refueling parameters on [22] Majumdar AK, Steadman TE, Maroney JL, Sass JP, Fesmire JE.
storage density of compressed hydrogen storage Tank. Int J Numerical modeling of propellant boil-off in a cryogenic
Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:16685e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/ storage tank. AIP Conf. Proc. 2008:1507e14. https://doi.org/
j.ijhydene.2020.08.136. 10.1063/1.2908513.
[6] Sapre S, Pareek K, Rohan R, Singh PK. H2 refueling [23] Sass JP, Fesmire JE, Nagy ZF, Sojourner SJ, Morris DL,
assessment of composite storage tank for fuel cell vehicle. Augustynowicz SD. Thermal performance comparison of
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:23699e707. https://doi.org/ glass microsphere and perlite insulation systems for liquid
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.07.044. hydrogen storage tanks. AIP Conf. Proc. 2008:1375e82.
[7] Reddi K, Elgowainy A, Rustagi N, Gupta E. Techno-economic https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2908497.
analysis of conventional and advanced high-pressure tube [24] Notardonato WU, Swanger AM, Fesmire JE, Jumper KM,
trailer configurations for compressed hydrogen gas Johnson WL, Tomsik TM. Zero boil-off methods for large-
transportation and refueling. Int J Hydrogen Energy scale liquid hydrogen tanks using integrated refrigeration
2018;43:4428e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/ and storage. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2017:1e6. https://
j.ijhydene.2018.01.049. doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/278/1/012012.
[8] Elgowainy A, Reddi K, Sutherland E, Joseck F. Tube-trailer [25] Taylor JB, Alderson JEA, Kalyanam KM, Lyle AB, Phillips LA.
consolidation strategy for reducing hydrogen refueling Technical and economic assessment of methods for the
station costs. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:20197e206. storage of large quantities of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.10.030. Energy 1986;11:5e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(86)
[9] Kruck O, Prelicz R, Rudolph T. Overview on all known 90104-7.
underground storage technologies for hydrogen. www. [26] Ozarslan A. Large-scale hydrogen energy storage in salt
hyunder.eu; 2013. caverns. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:14265e77. https://
[10] Andersson J, Gro € nkvist S. Large-scale storage of hydrogen. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.07.111.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:11901e19. https://doi.org/ [27] Caglayan DG, Weber N, Heinrichs HU, Linßen J, Robinius M,
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.063. Kukla PA, et al. Technical potential of salt caverns for
[11] Amos WA. Costs of storing and transporting hydrogen. hydrogen storage in Europe. Int J Hydrogen Energy
NREL/TP-570-25106; 1999. 2020;45:6793e805. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[12] Arnold SM, Bednarcyk BA, Collier CS, Yarrington PW. j.ijhydene.2019.12.161.
Spherical cryogenic hydrogen tank preliminary design trade [28] Lemieux A, Shkarupin A, Sharp K. Geologic feasibility of
studies. Collect. Tech. Pap. - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC underground hydrogen storage in Canada. Int J Hydrogen
Struct. Struct. Dyn. Mater. Conf. 2007:1e20. https://doi.org/ Energy 2020;45:32243e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.2514/6.2007-2290. j.ijhydene.2020.08.244.
[13] Fesmire JE, Sass JP, Nagy Z, Sojourner SJ, Morris DL, [29] Tarkowski R. Underground hydrogen storage: characteristics
Augustynowicz SD. Cost-efficient storage of cryogens. AIP and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;105:86e94.
Conf. Proc. 2008:1383e991. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2908498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.051.
[14] Ishimoto Y, Voldsund M, Nekså P, Roussanaly S, Berstad D, [30] Michanowicz DR, Buonocore JJ, Rowland ST, Konschnik KE,
Gardarsdottir SO. Large-scale production and transport of Goho SA, Bernstein AS. A national assessment of underground
hydrogen from Norway to Europe and Japan: value chain natural gas storage: identifying wells with designs likely
analysis and comparison of liquid hydrogen and ammonia as vulnerable to a single-point-of-failure. Environ Res Lett
energy carriers. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:32865e83. 2017;12:1e12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7030.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.017. [31] Simon J, Ferriz AM, Correas LC. HyUnder - hydrogen
[15] Syed MT, Sherif SA, Veziroglu TN, Sheffield JW. An economic underground storage at large scale: case study Spain. Energy
analysis of three hydrogen liquefaction systems. Int J Procedia 2015:136e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:565e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2015.07.661.
s0360-3199(97)00101-8. [32] Amid A, Mignard D, Wilkinson M. Seasonal storage of
[16] Ohlig K, Decker L. The latest developments and outlook for hydrogen in a depleted natural gas reservoir. Int J Hydrogen
hydrogen liquefaction technology. AIP Conf. Proc. Energy 2016;41:5549e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
2014:1311e7. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4860858. j.ijhydene.2016.02.036.
[17] Essler J, Haberstroh C, Quack H, Wallnum HT, Berstrand D, [33] Le Duigou A, Bader AG, Lanoix JC, Nadau L. Relevance and
Neksa P, et al. Report on technology overview and barriers to costs of large scale underground hydrogen storage in France.
energy- and cost-efficient large-scale hydrogen liquefaction. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:22987e3003. https://doi.org/
2012. p. 278177. IdealHy - Grant Agreement number. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.239.
[18] Cardella U, Decker L, Klein H. Roadmap to economically [34] Liebscher A, Wackerl J, Streibel M. Geologic storage of
viable hydrogen liquefaction. Int J Hydrogen Energy hydrogen - fundamentals, processing, and projects. Hydrog.
2017;42:13329e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Sci. Eng. Mater. Process. Syst. Technol. 2016:629e58. https://
j.ijhydene.2017.01.068. doi.org/10.1002/9783527674268.ch26.
[19] Skaugen G, Berstad D, Wilhelmsen Ø. Comparing exergy [35] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Borns DJ. Geologic storage of hydrogen:
losses and evaluating the potential of catalyst-filled plate-fin scaling up to meet city transportation demands. Int J
and spiral-wound heat exchangers in a large-scale Claude Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:15570e82. https://doi.org/10.1016/
hydrogen liquefaction process. Int J Hydrogen Energy j.ijhydene.2014.07.121.
2020;45:6663e79. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [36] Pfeiffer WT, Bauer S. Subsurface porous media hydrogen
j.ijhydene.2019.12.076. storage - scenario development and simulation. Energy
[20] Krasae-in S, Stang JH, Neksa P. Development of large-scale Procedia 2015:565e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
hydrogen liquefaction processes from 1898 to 2009. Int J j.egypro.2015.07.872.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 4 5 2 7 e3 4 5 4 1 34541

[37] Reitenbach V, Ganzer L, Albrecht D, Hagemann B. Influence [52] Sofregaz LRC. Commercial potential of natural gas storage
of added hydrogen on underground gas storage: a review of in lined rock caverns (LRC). Topical report SZUS-0005 DE-
key issues. Environ Earth Sci 2015;73:6927e37. https:// AC26-97FT34348-01. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4176-2. Energy; 1999.
[38] Panfilov M. Underground storage of hydrogen: in situ self- [53] Doneva N, Despodov Z, Mirakovski D, Hadzi-Nikolova M,
organisation and methane generation. Transport Porous Mijalkovski S. Cost analysis in construction of underground
Media 2010;85:841e65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-010- mining structures and opportunities for their reduction. Rud
9595-7. Zb 2015:1e12. https://doi.org/10.17794/rgn.2015.2.1.
[39] Hemme C, van Berk W. Hydrogeochemical modeling to [54] Brandshaug T, Christianson M, Damjanac B. Technical
identify potential risks of underground hydrogen storage in review of the lined rock cavern (LRC) concept and design
depleted gas fields. Appl Sci 2018;8:1e19. https://doi.org/ methodology: mechanical response of rock mass. DE-
10.3390/app8112282. AM26-99FT40463.Prepared for the U.S. Department of
[40] Kim HM, Rutqvist J, Ryu DW, Choi BH, Sunwoo C, Song WK. Energy; 2001.
Exploring the concept of compressed air energy storage [55] Damjanac B, Carranza-Torres C, Dexter R. Technical review
(CAES) in lined rock caverns at shallow depth: a modeling of the lined rock cavern (LRC) concept and design
study of air tightness and energy balance. Appl Energy methodology: steel liner response. DE-AM26-99FT40463.
2012;92:653e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy; 2002.
j.apenergy.2011.07.013. [56] Aksoy CO. Review of rock mass rating classification:
[41] Lindblom UE. A conceptual design for compressed hydrogen historical developments, applications, and restrictions. J Min
storage in mined caverns. Int J Hydrogen Energy Sci 2008;44:51e63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10913-008-0005-2.
1985;10:667e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(85)90006-0. [57] Bieniawski ZT. Classification of rock masses for engineering:
[42] Perazzelli P, Anagnostou G. Design issues for compressed air the RMR system and future trends. Compr Rock Eng
energy storage in sealed underground cavities. J Rock Mech 1993;3:553e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-042066-
Geotech Eng 2016;8:314e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0.50028-8.
j.jrmge.2015.09.006. [58] Brown D, Cabe J, Stout T. National lab uses OGJ data to
[43] Rutqvist J, Kim HM, Ryu DW, Synn JH, Song WK. Modeling of develop cost equations. Oil Gas J 2011:108e11.
coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of [59] Allen RD, Doherty TJ, Thoms RL. Geotechnical factors and
underground compressed air energy storage in lined rock guidelines for storage of compressed air in solution mined
caverns. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2012;52:71e81. https:// cavities. DE-AC06-76RLO. Prepared for the U.S. Department
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.02.010. of Energy; 1982.
[44] Semprich S, Crotogino F, Schneider HJ. Storage in lined hard- [60] Attkins. Salt cavern appraisal for hydrogen and gas storage.
rock cavens: results of a pilot study. Tunn Undergr Sp 5149533-MD-REP-005. Prepared for the Energy Technologies
Technol Inc Trenchless 1990;4:309e13. https://doi.org/ Institute; 2018.
10.1016/0886-7798(90)90124-3. [61] Wheeler Foster. Hydrogen storage and flexible turbine
[45] Tengborg P, Johansson Jgd J. Storage of highly compressed systems WP2 report e hydrogen storage. Contract
gases in underground Lined Rock Caverns- More than 10 number1.17.13058. Prepared for the Energy Technologies
years of experience. Procedings World Tunneal Congr Institute; 2013.
2014:1e7. [62] Barron TF. Regulatory, technical pressures prompt more US
[46] Kim D, Quagliato L, Lee W, Kim N. Yield strength mapping in salt-cavern gas storage. Oil Gas J 1994;92:1e15. https://
the cross section of ERW pipes considering kinematic doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(95)93465-2.
hardening and residual stress. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017:1e8. [63] Puder MG, Veil JA. Offsite commercial disposal of oil and gas
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/896/1/012066. exploration and production Waste: availability, options, and
[47] ICF. Feasibility and impacts of domestic content costs. ANL/EVS/R-06/5. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
requirements for U.S. Oil and gas pipelines. American Energy; 2006.
Petroleum Institute; 2016. [64] U.S. Department of the Interiror - Bureau of Reclamation.
[48] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/ Brine-concentrate treatment and disposal options report.
fsbdev3_015406.pdf n.d. Management, Southern California Regional Brine-
[49] Fekete JR, Sowards JW, Amaro RL. Economic impact of Concentrate I, Study e Phase; 2009.
applying high strength steels in hydrogen gas pipelines. Int J [65] Jensen VB, Darby JL. Brine disposal options for small systems
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:10547e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/ in California's Central Valley. J Am Water Works Assoc
j.ijhydene.2015.06.090. 2016;108:276e89. https://doi.org/10.5942/
[50] https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content¼hdsam n.d. jawwa.2016.108.0045.
[51] Johanson F, Spross J, Damasceno D, Johansson J, Stille H. [66] DOE H2A analysis. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_
Investigation of research needs regarding the storage of analysis.html; 2020.
hydrogen gas in lined rock caverns. KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, TRITA-ABE-RPT-182; 2018.