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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Review Article

Large-scale compressed hydrogen storage as part

of renewable electricity storage systems

Ahmed M. Elberry a,b, Jagruti Thakur b, Annukka Santasalo-Aarnio a,*,

Martti Larmi a
a
Research Group of Energy Conversion, School of Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
b
Division of Energy Systems, Department of Energy Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden

highlights

Limitations and challenges of large-scale hydrogen storage.

A coverage for all technologies for the compressed hydrogen storage.

Reviewing the concerns of hydrogen blending into the natural gas infrastructure.

Compares the technologies with respect to; storage time, losses, size, and cost.

To evaluate the storage alternatives, a techno-economic chain analysis is required.

article info abstract

Article history: Storing energy in the form of hydrogen is a promising green alternative. Thus, there is a
Received 22 December 2020 high interest to analyze the status quo of the different storage options. This paper focuses
Received in revised form on the large-scale compressed hydrogen storage options with respect to three categories:
5 February 2021 storage vessels, geological storage, and other underground storage alternatives. In this
Accepted 10 February 2021 study, we investigated a wide variety of compressed hydrogen storage technologies, dis-
Available online 8 March 2021 cussing in fair detail their theory of operation, potential, and challenges. The analysis
confirms that a techno-economic chain analysis is required to evaluate the viability of one
Keywords: storage option over another for a case by case. Some of the discussed technologies are
Hydrogen immature; however, this does not rule out these technologies; rather, it portrays the
Hydrogen storage research opportunities in the field and the foreseen potential of these technologies.
Geological Furthermore, we see that hydrogen would have a significant role in balancing intermittent
Storage vessels renewable electricity production.
Underground storage © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications
Renewable energy LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author. P.O.Box 14300, 00076 AALTO, Espoo, Finland.

E-mail address: annukka.santasalo@aalto.fi (A. Santasalo-Aarnio).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.080
0360-3199/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
15672 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15672
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15673
Hydrogen compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15674
Compressed hydrogen storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15675
Storage vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15676
Seamless hydrogen storage vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15678
Multifunctional layered stationary hydrogen storage vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15678
Steeleconcrete composite pressure vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15679
Hydrogen storage in wind turbine towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15679
Utilizing natural gas metallic vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15679
Geological storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15680
Other underground technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15682
Blending hydrogen into natural gas pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15682
Underground methanation reactor (UMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15683
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15683
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15684
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15685
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15685
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15685

in the energy mix and with the volatility of solar PV and wind
Introduction power that affects energy security [10], the need for storage
systems that can store energy for long term increases.
The interest in hydrogen storage is growing, which is derived Hydrogen has the potential to turn out to be one of the
by the decarbonization trend due to the use of hydrogen as a lowest-cost electricity storage options throughout days,
clean fuel for road and marine traffic, and as a long term weeks, and even months [12], which makes it one of the most
flexible energy storage option for backing up intermittent prominent options for renewable energy long-term storage [6].
renewable sources [1]. Hydrogen is currently used in indus- Moreover, energy from RES can be transmitted through
trial, transport, and power generation sectors; however, the hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels over long distances from
use of hydrogen is mainly concentrated in the industrial areas with ample solar and wind resources, such as Australia
sector (e.g., oil refining) [2,3]. It is expected that hydrogen de- or Latin America, to power-hungry cities thousands of kilo-
mand will grow at a 5.48% compound annual growth rate meters away [6,13].
(CAGR) over the period from 2019 to 2025 [4], while the global Hydrogen generated by electrolysis can also play a crucial
hydrogen energy storage market is expected to grow at a CAGR role in incorporating large amounts of the surplus renewable
of 5.8% over the same forecast period [5].
Despite being used extensively in the industrial sector, the
potential of hydrogen to support clean energy transitions has
not been perceived yet [6]. Although batteries can efficiently
store electrical energy, yet they are not economically feasible
for large-scale and long-term storage, and they possess ma-
terial limitations [7]. The potential of hydrogen storage for
renewable energy sources (RES) is growing because RES ca-
pacity is expected to increase by 50% between 2019 and 2024,
led by solar PV and on-shore wind [2,8].
Globally, the installed capacity of wind and solar power is
growing exponentially [9], as shown in Fig. 1. Wind power is
one of RES that is difficult to predict accurately [10], making its
integration to the grid difficult, as it causes imbalances be-
tween peak demand and production, leading the system
operator to dispatch the higher cost generators with high
ramp rate needed to fulfill the demand. It also leads to tech-
nical challenges like transmission line congestions and dis-
turbances in the electricity markets due to these imbalances Fig. 1 e Installed capacity of wind and solar power in the
in the generation [11]. With the forecasted growth of RES share world data from Ref. [9].
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
electricity, which otherwise curtailed. Also, without a new
flexible demand option, high renewable curtailments will take
place because of the shortage of time and spatial demand that
fits the generation [14]. Although hydrogen is considered a
clean fuel that produces zero emissions during use (except for
water vapor) [15], its production is currently neither clean nor
sustainable. It is accountable for around 830 million tons of
CO2 emissions per year [6]. Nevertheless, in the future, water
electrolysis powered by RES would be a clean way to produce
hydrogen, yet at the current market cost, this is still consid-
erably more expensive than the route from fossil sources. To
estimate the CO2 emission from the full life-cycle of the
technology, we need to also take into account emissions that
are produced by the production of the electrolyzer’s equip-
ment per se, particularly, the noble metal catalyst materials
that have high CO2 intensity due to the mining of these
metals.
When hydrogen is produced, it can be stored as a com-
pressed gas, liquid, or as a part of a chemical structure [16].
Hydrogen storage as compressed gas have challenges related
to the high energy requirement because of hydrogen’s low
specific gravity [17]. Furthermore, there are some material
challenges pertaining to the materials of the storage tanks.
Storing hydrogen in the liquid form requires a 64% higher
amount of energy than that needed for high-pressure
hydrogen gas compression, where hydrogen does not liquefy
until 253  C [18], and cooling that far is an energy-intensive
process [19].
Hydrogen can be chemically stored by absorbing or react-
ing with other chemical compounds such as metals or
“organic substances.” Metal hydrides are one of the most
common types of hydrogen chemical storage that have the
ability to store hydrogen at high densities that can exceed that
of liquid hydrogen [20,21]. The challenges of storing hydrogen
in a chemical form are mostly relative to the hydrogenation
and dehydrogenation processes considering high temperature
and pressure requirements which might be an obstacle to
their application in large-scale energy storage applications
[17,21]. On the other hand, some promising solutions are
emerging that can offer unlimited storage size and time, like
circular methanol, dimethyl ether, and liquid organic
hydrogen carriers [22e24]. Several types of materials can be
utilized in chemical storage, in-depth reviews of such mate-
rials can be found in Refs. [25e28].
In June 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) had
released a report that identified geological storage, namely
salt caverns, depleted natural gas or oil reservoirs, and
aquifers as the best options for large-scale and long-term
storage [6]. While salt caverns can reach high efficiency up
to 98% without contaminating the stored hydrogen [29], the
depleted oil and gas reservoirs contain contaminants that
need to be eliminated if hydrogen would be utilized in high
purity applications such as low-temperature fuel cells [30].
Still, if there is no high demand for hydrogen purity, this
would be a possible option. For aquifers, hydrogen loss is also
possible due to the reactions with rocks, fluids, and micro-
organisms [6]; however, this does not eliminate their po-
tential as a storage option when these losses are accounted
for [31].
15673
Storing hydrogen over long periods is constrained by the
hydrogen losses where, besides the fact that it is the most
bountiful element in the universe, hydrogen is the lightest and
smallest molecule as well, which implies that it needs to be
rapidly contained before escaping to the Earth’s top atmo-
sphere and then to space [32]. In addition to that, other tech-
nical and economic challenges are always associated with
hydrogen storage in large-scale applications. Hence, the
storage of large quantities of hydrogen over an extended
period of time is a critical issue, and new measures are
required to cope with the different hindrances when it comes
to the wide deployment of hydrogen in energy storage
applications.
Several studies were published recently on large-scale
hydrogen storage [18,19,32e37]; however, these studies did
not provide complete coverage to all the compressed gas
hydrogen storage technologies; rather, their focus is almost
exclusively on the geological storage. The novelty of this paper
is to provide broader coverage for all the available technolo-
gies for the compressed hydrogen storage, including the
mature and immature ones, along with providing a status quo
of those technologies.
The paper is divided into five main sections, starting with a
discussion on hydrogen compression in section 2. After that,
the large-scale hydrogen storage alternatives are laid out in
section 3 followed by discussion and conclusion in sections 4
and 5, respectively. These main sections have various sub-
sections that reflect on the general theory of operation of the
technologies, relative challenges, and the recent technological
advances that can tackle those challenges.
Methodology
The extensive study of large-scale hydrogen storage is a
mixed-method review that combines qualitative and state-of-
the-art reviews. The qualitative review aimed to comprehen-
sively describe the theory of operation and phenomena
behind the different hydrogen storage technologies in fair
details, along with the materials’ relative issues. The findings
of the relative studies are then integrated and conceptually
synthesized along with that tabular accompaniment when-
ever fits. The qualitative review is complemented by a state-
of-the-art review that analyzed the current state of knowledge
and the technological advances in the field.
The following portals were utilized to find the articles for
this review: Google scholar, research gate, IEEE Xplore, Sci-
enceDirect, SpringerLink, SpringerMaterials, Semantic
Scholar, Google patents, Google books, KTH library, ASME
Digital Collection, data and statistics of IEA and IRENA along
with organizations’ websites such as Airliquide and the U.S.
Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). “Hydrogen storage” and
“large-scale storage” are the main keywords that were utilized
during the research to screen and identify the compressed
hydrogen storage technologies that can be currently used in
large-scale storage applications.
In this paper, storing compressed gaseous hydrogen is
discussed based on three main types of storage: a storage
vessel with its different types, geological storage, and other
underground storage alternatives, as shown in Fig. 2.
15674 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0

Fig. 2 e Schematic diagram for storage facilities types for compressed hydrogen.

Hydrogen compression

A widely used process for processing gaseous fuels is com-

pressing it to high pressure to achieve lower volume. The
apparent distinction between hydrogen and other traditional
fuels compression, such as natural gas, is the energy demand
[38], where compressing hydrogen requires more energy
because of its lower relative density [27]. Ni has stated based
on thermodynamics and the equation of state of an ideal gas
ðPV ¼ nRTÞ [39], that the volumetric storage density of
hydrogen (H2  kg=m3 ) at 25 C can be calculated as follows [19]:
 
kg
volumetric storage density of hydrogen ¼ 0:0807P H2  3 (1)
m

where P is the storage pressure in bars. On the other hand,

Makridis argued that unlike most gases that behave to a great
extent in accordance with the ideal gas law, hydrogen
dramatically deviates from the laws’ predictions [40] where
Fig. 4 e The change of the volumetric density of n- H2
hydrogen fills a bigger space than that predicted by the ideal
(normal hydrogen) with respect to pressure change at three
gas law. This deviation can be compensated for by using a
different temperatures, data from Ref. [41].
compressibility factor ðZÞ as follows [25]:

Fig. 3 e Compressibility factor (Z) for hydrogen WRT
pressure and temperature, data from Ref. [25].
nideal mideal
PV ¼ nZRT; where Z ¼ ¼ (2)
nreal mreal
It can be seen in Fig. 3 that at ambient temperature and a
pressure of around 300 bar, the compressibility factor ðZÞ is
1.2. This implies that a mass of hydrogen gas inside a
container calculated by the ideal gas equation will be 20%
greater than the actual mass [25].
Furthermore, the increase in hydrogen density is not linear
with the pressure increase as shown in Fig. 4. For attaining 70
kg=m3 density of hydrogen, the gas pressure needs to increase
to up to 2000 bar [41], whereas methane can reach the same
storage density at around 95 bar when the temperature is
ambient [42].
There are two key components for the compressed
hydrogen gas storage system: the storage means and the
compressor used for reaching the storage pressure [43]. Due to
properties of materials, investment costs, and safety issues,
storing large quantities of compressed hydrogen gas at pres-
sures exceeding 200 bar have many hindrances [43,44], which
can be tackled with research and technology [45]. The work
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0 15675

Fig. 5 e Energy required for compressing hydrogen, helium, and methane gasses, data from Ref. [46].

Fig. 6 e Energy required for hydrogen compression as a percentage of its energy content (HHV), data from Ref. [46].

needed for compressing gasses is based on gas nature and the
thermodynamics behind the compression process [40]. As can
be seen in Fig. 5, hydrogen requires a significantly larger
amount of energy to be compressed to the same pressure than
helium and methane, which is mainly due to its extremely low
density [46,47].
Compression work calculations are generally simplified by
assuming either an adiabatic or isothermal compression
process [41]. Under the adiabatic process assumption, the
process occurs without transferring heat to the surroundings
and at a constant entropy (Isentropic). In this case, the gas
temperature varies without heat transfer occurrence between
the gas and the surroundings [48]. Under the assumption of an
isothermal process, the gas temperature stays constant dur-
ing the compression process [49]. Under realistic conditions,
theoretical isothermal and isentropic compression works acts
as the boundaries for the compression work [41] and their
difference for the case of hydrogen is presented in Fig. 6.
It can also be noted from Fig. 6 that the closer the process is
to isothermal conditions, the lesser is the work required to
compress hydrogen. Whereas a compressor that can
compress gas isothermally does not exist under real condi-
tions, it is possible to use multi-stage compression and cool
down the compressed gas after each stage using cooling
devices to make the compression as close as possible to the
isothermal performance [49]. As a result, compressing
hydrogen is usually performed in multi-stages [40]. The cool-
ing energy required denoted as qk is added to the compression
work which can be calculated with respect to the first law of
thermodynamics as follows [25]:
w ¼ h2  h1 þ qk (3)
where h1 and h2 are the gas enthalpies before and after the
compression, respectively.
Principally, a hydrogen compressor is the device in charge
of increasing the gas pressure by reducing its volume.
Hydrogen compressors can be of different types, and each
type has its advantage and disadvantages, and its employ-
ment would be mostly based on the required pressure. The
pros and cons along with the status quo of hydrogen
compression technologies, are discussed in detail elsewhere
[50].
Compressed hydrogen storage
A thorough study of hydrogen storage means, along with
identifying the limitations and barriers of the storage, is
15676 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
outlined in this section. Starting with section 3.1, which in-
vestigates storage vessels with their different types, followed
by a discussion about geological storage in section 3.2 and end
with section 3.3, in which the other underground technologies
that have the potential to be utilized in large scale energy
storage applications are outlined.
Storage vessels
Pressure vessels are commonly used in industrial, automo-
tive, commercial, and aerospace applications, starting from a
small bottle to massive storage tanks [51]. Their design,
manufacture, use, and maintenance are regulated by different
standards [52,53], with well-defined safety guidelines [54].
Some metals are subject to embrittlement1 caused by
hydrogen adsorption and dissociation at surfaces of those
materials [56], which reduce the strength and durability of the
material [57]. Suitable materials that are mostly used for the
pressure cylinders are austenitic stainless-steel,2 aluminum
and copper alloys, which are known for their resistance and
opposition to effects of hydrogen at ambient temperatures
[58,59]. Many other materials such as alloy or high strength
steels are prone to embrittlement, and their usage should be
avoided in hydrogen storage applications [59].
For vehicle applications, the service pressure of hydrogen
storage vessels is normally under 35 or 70 MPa [60,61]. Utiliz-
ing 70 MPa vessels will increase the volumetric storage density
to about 38 kg=m3 compared to 23 kg=m3 at 35 MPa and with a
negligible increase in the energy needed for compression [17].
However, the storage system gravimetric efficiency will
decrease [62] due to the larger weight of the vessel resulted
from the increased wall thickness that is required to sustain
the tensile strength acted upon by the high pressure [59,63].
Overall, the decrease in the gravimetric density will be the
penalty of increasing volumetric storage density.
This study focuses on stationary hydrogen storage, and
therefore the gravimetric efficiency is not in focus, being more
critical for mobile applications. But the tensile strength and
material choice are still obstacles for stationary storages.
Hydrogen gas is usually compressed to pressure values
starting from 100 and up to 825 bars for large-scale storage
[43,64]. Hence, materials choices are crucial, considering such
high-pressure requirements. Considerable research has been
carried out in this field, providing insights about the materials
that are compatible with the high-pressure hydrogen gas. A
comprehensive study on theory and design principles for
pressure loading on hydrogen storage vessels along with the
compatible materials can be found elsewhere [65].
The pressure vessels for hydrogen storage can be assorted
into four types: Type I, II, III, and IV [33,66]. In General, the
pressure vessels are constructed with a central cylindrical
section, two spherical domes, and polar opening (s). They can
1
Embrittlement is the loss of the material ductility, which is
the ability of material to be subjected to plastic deformation
before becoming brittle [55].
2
Austenitic stainless steels are non-magnetic stainless steels
which have large immunity to corrosion and also known for their
formability [58].
also be polymorph or toroid in the case of composite vessels
[51,67,68].
Type I pressure vessels are made of metals like carbon steel
and low alloy steel; they are mostly used in industrial and
commercial applications and are available with a net volume
of 2.5e50 m3 at a pressure of 200/300 bar [25]. The type I vessels
can stand 500 bar maximum pressure [33]. Although type I
allow for good safety and strength properties, yet its high
weight has led to the development of composite materials
tanks, which is much lighter in weight [25,69].
Type II consists of a thick load-bearing metal liner (steel or
aluminum) that ensures the gas tightness and prohibits its
escape. This thick liner is partially wrapped with a fiber resin
composite on the cylindrical part like a hoop-wrap [25,33,70].
This hoop reinforcement will lead to a better resistance for the
metallic liner fatigue, where residual compressive stress3 can
occur and get locked in the liner material, leading to an
abatement in the maximum stress that the metal can handle
before getting brittle (tensile stress) [51]. The steel liner and
composite material equally share the structural load [72]. The
pressure that type II vessel can withstand is not limited [33].
Reinforcing fibers and matrix are the basic components of
composite materials; where the matrix binds the fibers
together, allowing for load transfer between them and the
matrix also shields the fibers against potential environmental
and mechanical wearing [73].
Similarly, the Type III pressure vessel consists of a metal
liner but thin and fully wrapped (axial and hoop wrapped)
with a fiber resin composite of high-strength and stiffness
that carry most of the pressure load acting on the vessel. In
contrast, the metal liners carry only about 20% of the load
[35,51]. Type III can withstand pressure up to 450 bar [33], and
its weight is half of the type I weight, but its cost is twice that
of type II [72]. Type IV vessel consists of a polymer liner or, in
some rare cases, an ultra-thin metal liner that is fully wrapped
with a fiber resin composite, where the polymer liner secures
gas tightness. Only the vessel boss and its liner-junction are
still made of metal. These kinds of vessels allow for a storage
pressure up to 1000 bar [33]. In these types of vessels, the
composites carry the structural load, and although they are
the lightest of all vessels, their prices are relatively high [72].
Furthermore, a new type of vessels was introduced in 2010
by the Composites Technology Development Inc.; namely,
type V, which is a linerless fully composite pressure vessel
based on a fiber-reinforced shell. The first vessel of this type
was 10e20% lighter and with a lower cost than composite
based storage vessels (Type II to IV). However, Type V is costly
to design and develop, and in addition to this, the maximum
operating pressure and volume of type V that can be attained
at this stage are limited which does not make type V a good fit
for large-scale compressed hydrogen storage [72,74e76].
Typically, hydrogen storage systems comprise different
components like valves, sensors, storage containers,..etc. [77].
These components are made of different materials that can be
3
Stress that is locked in a material during manufacturing.
Where there are regions in materials that are under stress as they
are pulled or pushed by the surrounding materials. These internal
stresses are referred to as residual stresses because they exist
within the material itself [71].
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
categorized to metallic, polymer, and composites parts, along
with related issues to the main categorization, are as follows
[33]:
a Metallic parts
As mentioned before, hydrogen embrittlement (HE) is the
main issue for metal components. The industry and academia
have put a lot of effort into tackling the HE issues by exam-
ining the HE mechanisms in detail, manufacturing develop-
ment of the alloys, component assembling, and assessing the
materials’ mechanical testing [78]. A review of the most recent
hydrogen embrittlement prevention techniques can be found
elsewhere [79].
b Polymer parts
Gas permeation is a common phenomenon for gasses in
direct contact with polymers. It results from the absorption,
diffusion, and desorption4 of gas molecules through complex
physical and chemical processes. There is no consolidated
theory that explains the gas permeation fully, but more details
can be found in the following reference [82].
However, it is believed that diffusion and accumulation
of hydrogen through substances is the critical process
behind gas permeation, which is more active in the case of
hydrogen because of its small molecule size. Deformation
occurrence is based on the cylinder’s maximum pressure
and the pressure retained in the cylinder after the end of the
emptying process. The speed of emptying the cylinder
might also have an impact that needs to be far more
investigated.
The cylinder’s structure and, principally, the polymer liner
and the boss junction are prone to high and low temperatures
ranging from 85 to 60  C depending on the standards
throughout the filling and emptying processes. The assess-
ment of liner deformation impact on the cylinder lifetime and
risk leakage can be provided by further tests that ought also to
provide recommendations on the suitable operating condi-
tions. All in all, materials should be carefully selected
accordingly to avert the deformation of materials that can
lead to a leak risk [33].
c Composites
As mentioned before, a composite material is based on the
unification of two different materials with a variety of
different compositions, of which fiber-reinforced composites
are the most common for hydrogen storage tanks [83]. This
material consists of fibers that are held together by the resin,
and the most common options for these both components are
discussed [25,33]:
Fibers
4
Absorption is the crossing or assimilation of one substance
molecules throughout the bulk of another [80]. Diffusion is the
transmission of gas particles from high concentration regions to
low ones [81]. Desorption is the breakup of one substance from
the surface of another one [80].
15677

Carbon fibers: has exceptional mechanical properties and
chemical resistance, which make them perfect for pressure
vessels. One of the drawbacks is their high cost.

Glass fibers: low stiffness compared to the other rein-
forcement fibers, but have the advantage of low cost [84].
Typically, glass fibers are not the main load-carrying ma-
terial in high-pressure hydrogen tanks. It can be combined
with carbon fibers for enhancing composite structure
toughness as well as deducing the total cost [51].

Aramid fibers: has a better mechanical property compared
to glass fiber. They are organic fiber with high tensile
strength and damage resistance [85]. The principal draw-
backs are the high cost and vulnerability to high temper-
atures and environmental corrosion [41].
Resins
Polyester, epoxy, phenol resins can be used. However, the
high mechanical properties of the epoxy resins and their
resistance to temperature and corrosion make them a perfect
candidate for manufacturing pressure vessels [33,51].
An important sequel to the material’s discussion is an issue
that was highlighted in the literature related to the handling of
the tanks. Further studies are needed to identify the conse-
quences of mechanical impacts or a fall of the cylinders during
handling and transportation, which may lead to damages in the
composite material and the polymer liner [33,86,87]. The authors
in the literature have also stated the development of bonfire5
tests is crucial for understanding the composite vessels’
behavior in the case of fire. Valenciaa and Ruban also reported
that bursting or leaking of the composite cylinders during a fire is
due to the heat transfer through the wall rather than pressure
increase as in the metallic pressure vessels. The heat transfer
leads to the loss of tightness or the degradation of the me-
chanical properties of the wall, which results in the burst [33,89].
Zheng et al. classified storage vessels for high-pressure
hydrogen gas into three types: stationary, vehicular, and bulk
transportation [90]. This study focuses on large-scale hydrogen
storage; hence, this study discusses in detail only stationary
tanks. The carbon fiber prices are quite high, where for type IV
storage system with a storage capacity of 5.6 H-kg at 700 bar
costs about 14:19 $=Kwh6 of which more than 50% accounts for
carbon fibers costs [91]. Thus, vessels of type III and IV that are
fully wrapped with composite materials are too expensive and
create another challenge for any potential future cost reductions
in contrast to steel or aluminum vessels [92]. As a result, Type III
and Type IV vessels are not economically viable for large scale
applications where low-cost hydrogen storage is required [43].
Stationary vessels that are mainly used for large-scale
applications like hydrogen refilling stations and energy stor-
age are of Type I and II tanks [90,93], which are based mainly
on metals. In our work, we present five alternatives for storage
vessels that could be utilized in large-scale storage applica-
tions (see Fig. 7).
5
The bonfire test is a prototype test aimed at demonstrating
performance of hydrogen storage vessels and the pressure relief
devices during fire [88].
6
This price is in 2016 dollars
15678 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
Fig. 7 e Schematic diagram for storage vessels Alternatives.
Seamless hydrogen storage vessel
Seamless hydrogen storage vessels are made from high
strength seamless7 tubes, and they are commonly utilized in
hydrogen fuel stations. The inner diameter of this kind of
vessel is limited to 6.1 m, and their maximum overall length is
based on the largest pipe length (usually  12 m) or the
available pipe weight. Thus, seamless hydrogen storage ves-
sels have a limited volume. Nevertheless, for storing large
quantities of hydrogen, seamless vessels can be used in multi-
vessel assemblies, which are denoted as cascade storage,
where the seamless vessels are assembled through valves and
interconnection piping manifolds8, leading to more hydrogen
leak points.
This vessel type volume is only 0:411m3 despite the
maximum operating pressure of 650 bar, implying that a large
number of vessels are required for large-scale storage. On the
other hand, the maximum operating pressure can be
increased by using steel with higher strength. On the other
hand, it has been found that when using a higher tensile
strength steel (  800 MPaÞ at high-pressure hydrogen, the
hydrogen embrittlement effect increases significantly,
possibly leading to physical and mechanical damage of the
steel’s properties. Moreover, hydrogen storage vessels are
difficult for Online Safety Monitoring as they are not capable
of neither collecting leaked hydrogen automatically nor
arresting crack propagation [45,90,95,96].
Multifunctional layered stationary hydrogen storage vessels
To overcome the above issues, the multifunctional steel
layered hydrogen storage vessel (MSLV) was developed. The
basic structure of MSLS is based on two main components: a
flat steel ribbon wound cylindrical shell and two double-
layered hemispherical heads where the cylinder shell is
composed of three shells; inner, layered, and a protective
shell. The inner shell is based on cladding steel sheets, layered
by the layer shell that is made from flat steel ribbons, while
the layer shell is wrapped by the protective shell, which is
made from steel sheets. On the other hand, the hemispherical
head is composed of inner and outer heads in which the inner
one is made up of double-layered steel sheets made from low
7 cost in reference to the corresponding storage pressures
No welding is required during the manufacturing process and
the vessel is seamless.
8
The manifold is set of pipes and/or valves aimed to organize
and control the fluid flow [94].
alloy steel and austenitic stainless steel. In this way, austen-
itic stainless steel would be the inner layer that is in direct
contact with the high pressure. Like the outer layer of the
inner head, the outer head is made from low alloy steel [45,97].
From the positive characteristics of MSLV is the feasibility
for manufacturing large-scale hydrogen storage vessels
operating at high pressure without restrictions on size, either
for shell and length thickness or internal diameter. As the
inner diameter increases, the manufacturing process be-
comes more manageable, resulting in better manufacturing
efficiency. Moreover, a reduction in associated costs is
attainable in comparison with seamless pressure vessels [45].
MSLV is not prone to hydrogen embrittlement issue, which
was solved by using hydrogen compatible materials for com-
ponents that are in direct contact with hydrogen. The cladding
layer material of the steel sheets used in the inner shell is
made from type 316 L stainless steel, which is compatible with
hydrogen at ambient temperature and high pressure. The rest
of the metals used in the cylinder (incl. outer shell) have
tensile strengths that are far below 800 MPa. Thus, even in
case of hydrogen leak occurrence from the inner shell,
hydrogen embrittlement can hardly take place [45,90].
Unlike seamless storage vessels, the structure of MSLVs
allows for an online safety monitoring system. The system is
equipped with sensors and other devices that are capable of
detecting hydrogen leakage points and vent it through an
escape pipe to prevent any potential fire (Burst Resistant or
Self-Protected). It has been proven that the flat steel ribbon
wound shell is not significantly affected by the sudden brittle
fracture damage, and the stalemate would be a gas leakage
and no burst under any condition [45].
Although theoretically, there is no restriction on MSLV
design parameters, the manufacturing of MSLVs is restricted
by the available winding machines capacities [97]. The Chi-
nese national standard (GB/T 26466-2011) identified the design
specifications as follows: the maximum operating pressure is
100 MPa, the inner diameter is up to15 m, and the maximum
length is 30 m [98].
MSLVs can be manufactured with design pressures ranging
from 200 to 980 bar and with volumes ranging from 0:5 to25 m3
[45,90,99]. The costs of MSLVs are less than the U.S. DOE target
[90,99]. The approximate costs for storing hydrogen at
860; 430; and 160 bar are 600; 450 and 350 $=kg  H2 [99],
respectively.
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
Fig. 8 e Hoop stress on a cylindrical vessel.
Steeleconcrete composite pressure vessels
Cylindrical pressure vessels are subjected to axial and hoop
stresses, which act on the longitudinal and circumferential
directions [100,101], as shown in Fig. 8. The hoop stress on a
cylindrical vessel can be calculated as follows [101]:
Pr
sq ¼
t
where P is the internal pressure, r is the internal radius, and t
is the wall thickness.
The hoop stress is a function of the wall thickness.
Therefore, as the wall thickness decreases, the hoop stress
increases.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory has developed steel-
concrete composite pressure vessels, consisting of an inner
steel vessel encased in a concrete shell [102]. The concept
behind such vessels is to allow for the hoop stresses to be
equally shared between the inner steel vessel shell and the
concrete shell. As such, hydrogen can be stored in large-
diameter steel vessels under high pressure without the need
to use large shell thickness, which is very hard to be produced
by steel mills, very expensive, and impractical [102].
Furthermore, cost savings can be accomplished by making
the internal steel shell out of layered construction rather than
a solid wall. This also allows for venting the permeating
hydrogen out of vent holes to the ambient, which in turn en-
hances the safety and helps in protecting the steel shell from
hydrogen damage. The steel layered shell is made from SA-
724 material with a tensile strength of 655 MPa ½102; and for
the inner liner, type 304 stainless steel with a tensile strength
of 43:1 MPa [102] is used. This implies that hydrogen embrit-
tlement potential is eliminated. Moreover, the inner vessel
layered design allows leaking before bursting, which helps in
averting catastrophic failures [102,103].
A mock-up vessel has been fabricated with a design pres-
sure of 431 bar and an approximate volume of 2:2 m3 and now
it has been cycled with hydrogen to prove its reliability [102].
On the other hand, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has already
finished the design for a vessel of size 1; 000 kg at 875 bar with
cost below $700=kg  H2 and hydrogen leak rate of 50kg H2=
year [103].
Hydrogen storage in wind turbine towers
NREL has proposed storing hydrogen in wind turbines tubular
towers under patent no. US 7471,010 B1 [104]. The idea behind
that invention is to store a large amount of compressed
9 11
The crossover pressure is the critical pressure where failure
crosses from failure to bursting. For most of wind turbines, the
crossover pressure is between 10 and 15 bar.
15679
hydrogen gas inside the wind turbine tubular tower (in-tower
storage) at a pressure between 10 to 15 bars, limited by the
tower’s crossover pressure 9[105]. The conceptual design is to
store the hydrogen as close as possible to the lower part of the
tower. While the ladder and power transmission lines that
exist at that part will be moved to the tower exterior, and the
(4) power transmission lines shall be then protected by a conduit
[104]. It was found that a 940 kg of hydrogen can be stored at
an optimum pressure of 11 bar in a 1:5 MW wind turbine of
height of 84 m with a cost of $88=kg  H2 10[105,107]. Further-
more, the fatigue damages resulted from stresses imposed by
the storage’s internal pressure are expected to be negligible
compared to the frequent aerodynamic stresses. Neverthe-
less, issues such as hydrogen embrittlement, corrosion
induced by hydrogen, and the tower’s fatigue life are under
investigation [108].
Utilizing natural gas metallic vessels
There is a potential for utilizing the metal pressure vessels
that are used for natural/town gas storage in hydrogen gas
storage [43,109]. There are three main types of such vessels,
namely, pipe storage, gas holders, and spherical pressure
vessels. Gasholders can store large amounts of gas; however,
constrained to low operating pressure levels that are around
the atmospheric pressure levels [110,111]. Few hydrogen gas
holders currently exist; one of them is at Hochst Industrial
Park in Germany, holding net volume gas of 10K m3 at 1:07 bar
which is equivalent to about 898:8 Kg  H2 net mass capacity11
[111]. Provided that electrolyzers produce hydrogen at rela-
tively elevated pressures, which is expected with polymer
electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysers in the future
[111,112]; therefore, gas holders are not a viable option for
seasonal energy storage. Nevertheless, they can be utilized in
other applications, where low-pressure hydrogen is produced
[109].
Spherical pressure vessels could hold up about 300K m3 of
gas12 at a pressure of 20 bar, which is equivalent to 26964 kg 
H2 . Such vessels have lower capital and operating costs in
comparison with gas holders [109]. Tietz et al. have performed
a comprehensive study of spherical vessels and found no ev-
idence of their use for hydrogen storage applications [111].
Therefore, there are no available data about neither economic
nor technical parameters for hydrogen gas storage in spher-
ical vessels.
10
This cost is in 2004 dollars which is equivalent to about $121.
3y in 2020 dollars with an average inflation rate of 2.03% [106].
The net mass capacity was calculated using hydrogen density
at STP which is equal to 0.0899 kg/m3.
12
Geometric volume is about 15 755 m3 .
15680 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0

Pipe storage is one more alternative for storing compressed Geological storage
hydrogen gas. A storage volume of 12K m3 at pressures range
1.5e100 bar can be achieved in pipe storage facilities. The The theory of operation behind geological storage is to inject
building of pipe storage mainly comprises of civil construction hydrogen gas underground and storing it under pressure,
and welding activities where the storage pipes are commonly where it can be later withdrawn whenever needed. Under-
placed just a few feets under the ground, which requires a ground storage systems are advantageous in many regards;
hole excavation for the pipes. Pipes are welded together, first, they provide secured and safe storage since they are not
forming a storage pipe that is extended for up to several likely prone to fires and less vulnerable to potential threats by
hundred meters. Burying the pipes below the ground provides military or terrorist elements. Secondly, underground storage
protection for the pipes against environmental and mechan- can be smoothly integrated with the urban plan of cities with
ical impacts. However, coatings and other measures are the least modifications. Furthermore, unlike geological stor-
applied to protect the pipes from corrosion. Although burying age, surface tanks will need to occupy a large ample of surface
the pipes underground allows for land area utilization, there land to store the same amount of gas. Finally, the geological
are considerable limitations to avoid pipes damage caused by storages are the best option to store a large amount of
the above-ground activities, which may include, for example, hydrogen economically as compared to other present alter-
agricultural activities and therefore create a risk for hydrogen natives [117]. There are five types of geological storage:
leakage. Hence, the land must be leased, bought, or legally depleted natural gas & oil reservoirs, aquifers, salt caverns,
obtained in any way [109,111,113]. abandoned mines, and rock caverns (see Fig. 9).
For decades, pipe storages have been used for storing The underground stored gas is divided into a cushion and
natural gas. One example was a natural gas pipe storage fa- working gas. Cushion gas is the base gas of the underground
cility that was built in Switzerland at the end of 2013 with a storage reservoir aimed at keeping the pressure at an
storage volume of 6112 m3 and a net volume capacity of 720 K adequate level that would maintain the gas deliverability; the
m3 at a maximum operating pressure 100 bar [111,113,114]. rate at which the gas can be delivered out of the reservoir
The conversion of this total volume to hydrogen results in a which can be expressed as mass, volume or energy per a unit
total mass of 64714 kg, equivalent to 2156 MWh of energy, of time [118,119]. Therefore, cushion gas is intended to stay
and the related costs13 were 376:4 V=kg  H2 [111,113]. It is permanently in the reservoir and since it mostly gets trapped
with this in mind that storage in the GWh range is attainable inside the geological structure, it also becomes non-
with this kind of technology [103,105,107]. Tietz et al. re- recoverable; it can be considered as the minimum charge level
ported the storage efficiency for the spherical pressure ves- of the storage as in batteries [120,121]. On the other hand,
sels and pipe storage as 94.9% and 97.1%, respectively. Where working gas is the actual storage capacity that can be
the storage efficiency can be defined here as the ratio of repeatedly charged and discharged [122,123]. It should be
retrieved work from the storage to the input work used for noted that there is a possibility to extract part of the cushion
storing [111].
It should be noted that the storage parameters and costs
mentioned above were estimated by the authors of those
publications. Furthermore, considering hydrogen’s different
thermodynamic characteristics, material, and safety issues,
estimating such parameters from natural gas spherical ves-
sels would be far from being accurate. For obtaining accurate
parameters, a lot of research and development (R&D) is
needed for investigating the feasibility of such alternatives.
Except for pipe storage, it can be presumed that a little R&D is
needed as hydrogen pipelines already exist in some in-
dustries such as the chemical and Petro industries. Inas-
much as there are no considerable differences between
hydrogen pipelines and natural gas storage pipes [113], it is
believed hydrogen pipeline storage could be achieved with a
fast timetable.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that NPROXX, which is one
of the leading companies in manufacturing Type IV pressure
vessels for high-pressure hydrogen storage, is currently
developing a new vessel that can store more than 1000 Kg of
hydrogen at a pressure of 500 bar [116].
In light of the storage time, compressed hydrogen gas
storage is a closed system. Therefore, storing hydrogen gas for
extended periods with no losses is attainable as long as the
appropriate materials and dimensions are considered [25].

13
The reported cost in the literature was 376.4 V/kg in 2013
Euros which is equivalent to 400.5 V/kg in 2020 Euros [115]. Fig. 9 e A scheme for types of geological storage.
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
gas from the underground storage using specific technologies;
however, this partial recovery of the cushion gas would be
largely limited to the extensivity of the potential damage to
the underground formation that would result from the
extraction process [124].
The geological storage system typically includes injection
and withdrawal wells and a confining layer. The injection and
withdrawal wells are the devices responsible for getting the
hydrogen in and out of the underground geological formations
[125,126]. On the other hand, the confining formation acts as a
sealer to the gas so that it does not leak throughout the
boundaries of the reservoir [127,128].
For depleted natural gas & oil reservoirs, the gas is injected
below in the depleted reservoirs through the injection wells
[129]. The primary factor of the confining layer is cap rocks
which seal the top of the reservoir. These rocks are natural
rocks that possess unique characteristics, of which the most
important is their impermeability that ensures the gas’
tightness [130]. Cap rocks are often salt or shale14 rocks that
initially existed naturally in the depleted reservoirs contrib-
uting to the prevention of gas’ escaping [113,131]. Conversion
of depleted to underground hydrogen storage reservoirs is
likely to require a low budget (1.23 USD/kg15) [117]. The main
reason behind this is that the reservoir already exists and is
equipped with all the needed facilities and tools. Furthermore,
no geological tests or studies are needed for examining stor-
age behavior since they already exist [117,132].
Another advantage is the existence of residual gas even
after the depletion, which can act as cushion gas. On the other
hand, there are concerns about the potential contamination of
hydrogen because of the residual hydrocarbon [30] where
despite these residual gases are in equilibrium with the rocks
in the reservoir, the continuous injection of hydrogen will
alter this equilibrium [133]. However, it is uncertain to what
extent will the residual gas mix with hydrogen [129].
Furthermore, the conversion of the depleted reservoirs to
undergrounds storage facilities is not always attainable due to
limitations posed by different factors such as the reservoir’s
depth, structure, and hydrogen dissolution and diffusion into
the surrounding, which are discussed in detail elsewhere
[113,129,131,134]. This emphasizes that depleted reservoirs
need to meet specific criteria to be eligible for storing
hydrogen gas. Despite being one of the most common un-
derground gas storage (UGS) types [124], depleted reservoirs
have not been utilized for storing hydrogen before.
Similar to depleted reservoirs, there is no experience in
storing hydrogen in aquifers, except for some cases where
gases with 50e60% of hydrogen content have been stored in
aquifers by some companies (e.g., Gaz de France) [135]. Aqui-
fers are an underground geological structure of rocks that
holds groundwater; the rocks are porous and permeable,
where water can easily move among them [136]. A dome-
shaped formation must be created to hold the gas by dis-
placing the water sideways and downward. The porosity of
aquifers’ rocks makes it unsuitable for gas storage, which is
14
A shale is a fine-grained rock that disntegrste to mud upon
exposure to water. It is impermeable and is able to prohibit the
gas to flow through it [131].
15
Costs for geological storage here are levelized costs.
15681
why a layer of impermeable rocks needs to be added to form
the confining layer with the groundwater, together acting as a
sealer to the gas [137,138]. The tightness of an aquifer needs to
be identified and thoroughly studied through various tests
that are expensive in nature. This makes aquifers more
expensive (1.29 USD/kg) [117] than depleted reservoirs that
have such parameters known already.
Although hydrocarbons residues do not exist in the case of
aquifers, there are concerns about potential hydrogen
contamination and loss due to reaction with minerals and
microorganisms that exist there [137,139]. Another drawback
of aquifers is the high cushion gas requirements, which im-
plies that a vast amount of gas will be trapped permanently in
the aquifer without the possibility of being recovered later
[117]. There are also other environmental concerns regarding
the potential land subsidence and underground water
contamination [140,141]. The latter concern applies to all the
types of underground gas storages as underground water can
be one of the deep layers that contribute to the overall sealing
of these storages [113,131].
For salt caverns, there are already cases for implementing
them to store hydrogen in the United States, Britain, and
Germany. Salt caverns are formed by leaching16 the salt out of
a salt dome or a salt bed. Naturally, salt possesses special
properties that allow for tight and stable gas storagedmaking
salt caverns one of the best options for underground gas
storage. Furthermore, salt caverns require a lower cushion gas
compared to the other geological storage options [142]. The
amount of required cushion gas in salt caverns is based on its
depth; salt caverns at lower depths allow for lower cushion
gas requirements [117,143]. However, it is the most expensive
alternative (1.61 USD/kg), which can be attributed to the cost
accompanied with salt leaching [117,144,145].
In light of abandoned mines, they can be converted into
high-pressure gas storage facilities. However, there are a lot of
question marks about their gas tightness and the difficulty of
testing it. At the moment, using abandoned mines for storing
gases is not as commonly practiced as other geological alter-
natives [34,113]. Regarding rock caverns that are constructed
by conventional mining technologies, they are not usually
eligible for holding gases tightly enough under high pressure.
However, they can be sealed up using a range of different
methods such as natural groundwater and stainless-steel
lining, which can act as a permeability barrier [113,146e148]
One project of this kinddhard rock caverns for natural gas
storagedcurrently exists in Sweden, in which the lining is
steel with maximum storage pressure of 200 bar [43,113]. It is
believed that hydrogen might also be eligible to be stored in
this type of storage.
Some selected examples for the investigated geological
storage alternatives are listed in Table 1. Although the storage
options shown in Table 1 originally store natural gas (except
for salt caverns), the authors have recalculated the equivalent
parameters for hydrogen for ease of comparison [113]. As can
be seen in Table 1, there are apparent differences in what type
of pressures these storages can withstand, which is mostly
16
Leaching: dissolving solid minerals (e.g. salt) using pressur-
ized water.
17
Equivalent parameters for hydrogen ðEq:H2 ).
15682 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
Table 1 e Detailed information about some examples for the discussed types of geological storage [113].
Location Salt caverns
Clemens Moss Bluff
(USA) (USA)
Stored product Hydrogen Hydrogen
Seal/lining Rock salt Rock salt
Pressure range [bar] 70e135 55e152
Cushion gas (Mio. Kg) (Eq:H2 )17 2.98 2.30
Working gas (Mio. Kg) (Eq:H2 ) 2.56 3.72
Working gas (GWh) (Eq:H2 ) 100.8 146.7
based on the geological nature of the area and the kind of seal/
lining utilized. Even when the same seal/lining is used, slight
differences in the pressure range can still be noticed, as the
case for the salt caverns in Clemens and MOSS Bluff in Table 1,
where both rock caverns have sealing of rock salt but different
pressure ranges. Furthermore, the differences in the ratios of
cushion and working gases among the different alternatives
are noticeable.
Geological storage may have many challenges that include
but not limited to Refs. [113,117,149]:

Cost of compression needed for injection or withdrawal
which (depends on the initial H2 pressure)

Geological requirements

Potential chemical reactions with hydrogen that can result
in gas contamination or loss

The pipelines’ material durability (e.g., hydrogen
embrittlement)

Design concerns of the location, depth, and the exact vol-
ume of the well

Legal and social obstacles regarding country regulations
(e.g., land use and caverns construction regulations), public
acceptance, and environmental concerns.
Overall, there is no experience in storing pure hydrogen in
geological storage facilities except for salt caverns, which is
also still considered a limited experience [150]. For the wide
utilization of geological storage, actions need to be taken to
evaluate the potential hazards and the hydrogen behavior
upon storage in such facilities to prove its viability. Moreover,
addressing the geological characteristics and environmental
challenges should be a priority along with the legal and social
obstacles.
Other underground technologies
In this section, two other interesting underground storage
technologies that can be utilized in large-scale hydrogen
storage are discussed; the Underground storage of a blend of
natural gas and hydrogen, and the Underground methanation
reactor.
Blending hydrogen into natural gas pipelines
In this technology, pure hydrogen produced through a process
based on renewable resources is injected into natural gas’
pipelines or underground storage facilities. This technique
can also be used to store the surplus power produced by
Aquifers Depleted Gas Fields Rock Caverns Abandoned Mines
Stenlille Rheden Skallen Leyden
(DEN) (GER) (SWE) (USA)
NG NG NG NG
Cap rocks Cap rocks Steel Lining Groundwater
150e170 110e280 10e230 6.895-17.2
35.37 208.6 0.03 2.9
19.04 312.8 0.64 4.28
750.1 12322 25.1 168.7
renewable sources. No CO2 emissions result from hydrogen
upon combustion; therefore, adding hydrogen will decrease
the amount of natural gas burned by replacing it while keep-
ing the same energy value. This will result in what is known as
decarbonizing or greening the natural gas (reducing its CO2
emissions) [151]. Furthermore, the effect of utilizing this blend
in heat and electricity generation imitates the added value of
increasing renewable sources in the electricity mix [152].
Moreover, hydrogen can be recovered from the blend when
needed through various techniques that vary in efficiency [36].
Despite the benefits of hydrogen injection into the natural
gas network, there are also drawbacks that limit the amount
of hydrogen (%) that can be injected. Hydrogen embrittlement
is one of the main issues concerning pipelines safety and
leaking risk. However, these issues become less of a concern
at low hydrogen percentages. Furthermore, because high-
pressure make hydrogen embrittlement more pronounced,
hydrogen percentage should decrease with the increase of the
pressure of the gas pipeline or network. For example, its per-
centage should be lower in the transmission network (high-
pressure) than distribution ones (low-pressure) [151,153e155].
In addition to that, some countries utilize natural gas in the
household (e.g., Cooking), which triggers even more chal-
lenging issues related to the odor and color of a pure hydrogen
flame. As hydrogen can leak without being detected; there-
fore, odorizing hydrogen might be needed to make it more
detectable, especially that hydrogen’s risk of ignition is higher
than that of natural gas. Adding colorant should also be
considered considering the pale color of pure hydrogen flame
that might be entirely invisible [156,157].
Adding hydrogen to natural gas will increase the pressure
drop across the gas network. Whereas, because of hydrogen’s
low energy density, the amount of energy delivered through
the network will decrease. This makes it imperative to in-
crease the flowrate for delivering the original amount of en-
ergy; with increased flow rate, larger pressure drops, and
losses will take place [158]. As a result, it is recommended to
consider these pressure drops while planning future networks
[159].
Considering the utilization of hydrogen blend in industrial
and power generation applications that involve combustion of
the blend, new burners have been designed to be more flexible
with the new combustion characteristics. However, because
the hydrogen comes from intermittent renewables, the
hydrogen percentage will vary with time, which will result in
further issues that are being investigated currently [151,160].
On the other hand, the testing of the first hybrid hydrogen
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
turbine has been accomplished and will come into service by
2021 in Italy; the turbine will be fueled by natural gas blended
with up to 10% of hydrogen [161].
On the whole, there are concerns about the percentage of
hydrogen that can be injected into a natural gas network/
pipeline. At hydrogen blend percentage, less than 5e15%,
fewer concerns are involved that vary with respect to the
composition of the natural gas and other site conditions. For a
15e50% bend, more serious issues arise, for example, modi-
fying the end-user equipment to be compatible with the new
blend fuel. Safety and material concerns, along with more
challenges, arise at over 50% blends [152]. As shown in Fig. 10,
Germany has the highest allowable hydrogen blend percent-
age, up to 10% [162]. Overall, the issue of the safe percentage
range is controversial; however, many studies agreed on a
blend percentage that is up to 15e20% hydrogen [151,156].
A plan to create a hydrogen transport network throughout
Germany-the world’s largest hydrogen grid-has been pre-
sented by the German gas pipeline operators. The network
grid is to be 1200 km, of which 1100 were initially natural gas
pipelines and only 100 km would be newly built [163]. This
reflects on the relative hydrogen compatibility with the
existing infrastructure and gives insights into how the exist-
ing infrastructure can be modified accordingly.
Underground methanation reactor (UMR)
This technique is based on the reaction of hydrogen and car-
bon dioxide in an aquifer or depleted gas reservoir, where the
methanogenic bacteria that are normally present there cata-
lyzes the Sabatier’s reaction (Equation (4)).
4H2 þ CO2 / ¼CH4 þ 2H2 O
This reaction usually takes place at high temperatures in
the presence of a catalyst (nickel); however, in the presence of
the methanogenic bacteria, it occurs at a much lower tem-
perature. This saves money considering relatively expensive
Fig. 10 e The allowed hydrogen blend percentage in NG networks across the world, data from Ref. [162].
15683
catalysts (compared to bacteria) and the high temperature
required [164e167].
Panfilov was the first to introduce the UMR in 2010
[164,168]. He suggested that UMR can be achieved either by
injecting hydrogen into an aquifer/depleted gas reservoir that
is storing CO2 or through directly introducing CO2 into radio-
active waste’s underground stocks. In which the degradation
of containers produces pure hydrogen. The resulting methane
then could be added to the natural gas network, which can
provide one big storage that can be accessed by renewable
sources that are close to the natural gas grid. However, Strobel
et al. have studied the UMR’s potential and concluded that
currently, there are concerns regarding the production rate of
CH4 and the efficiency factor where neither of them could be
accurately determined so far. On the other hand, simulation
studies have portrayed the potential of UMR as a storage op-
tion in terms of capacity and conversion [168].
Discussion
This paper provides a holistic view of the technologies that
have the potential to be employed for large-scale hydrogen
storage to be used as a part of renewable electricity storage.
The analysis was based on reviewing more than 140 Scientific
papers and reports that covered compressed hydrogen stor-
age, different technologies, and their challenges from
different perspectives. The study discusses the ten most
feasible large-scale storage technologies for compressed
hydrogen. However, there are key questions and notions that
are not clearly represented in the existing literature such as,
(5) storage time, storage losses, lifetime, and charge and
discharge rates of the storage technology.
From all the technologies that have been investigated
throughout the study, some technologies were shortlisted for
a more thorough analysis. This does not rule out the other
15684 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
technologies; rather, it portrays the technologies that have
available data as well as a higher potential to store pure
hydrogen at present. Table 2 shows the results of the analysis
for the shortlisted technologies, which is based on four spe-
cific criteria: storage size, cost, and the technology maturity
for both hydrogen and natural gas. The technology maturity
for natural gas (NG) has been considered since, according to
Kruck et al. there is no substantial difference between the
hydrogen and natural gas storage facilities [113]. Hence, the
experience of storing NG would be an asset for assessing the
proposed hydrogen storage technologies. As mentioned
before, compressed hydrogen gas storage is a closed system,
so extended periods of storage with no losses are attainable as
long as the appropriate materials and dimensions are
considered. However, the higher the storage pressure, the
higher leakage possibility and the less the storage time, which
implies that the geological storage would have a higher stor-
age time due to its relatively low storage pressure when
compared to pressure vessels.
It can also be seen in Table 2 that geological storage has the
highest storage capacities, followed by underground pipe,
pressure vessels, and Wind turbine tower storages, respec-
tively. It should be noted that the pressure vessels and turbine
tower capacity is per unit. This implies that a multi-vessel
assembly (cascade storage) is one option, but on the other
hand, this will possibly lead to a larger number of hydrogen
leak points. Hence, more losses and lower storage time.
A closer look to the literature on costs reveals a number of
gaps and shortcomings; the costs represented in the literature
are not sufficiently explained and cannot be considered as
conclusive. Whereas some studies reported the costs without
labeling them as capital costs per kg  H2 or levelized capital
costs [37,117], which is substantially different. Only a few
studies clearly stated that the costs were levelized capital
costs; however, some details related to the number of years
Table 2 e Results of the assessment of the shortlisted
hydrogen storage technologies.
based on which the costs were levelized nor the interest rates
were not available [37,44].
Table 2 also highlights that there is always a trade-off with
the storage option, and the selected technology will reflect on
the users’ needs for the storage. The results imply that the
geological storage can prove to be one of the most feasible
options for a very large size hydrogen storage with extended
times, considering its technological and economical charac-
teristics. Also, it must be considered that the costs vary with
the size, so the geological storage would not be the economi-
cally optimum alternative in every case; rather, the smaller
the storage size, the higher cost the geological storage would
be. In fact, the geological nature and availability vary from one
place to another, which can greatly affect the costs as well; for
example, salt caverns storage has no potential in some
countries, such as Finland or Sweden, due to the absence of
the salt deposits there [134].
Conclusion
As renewable energy production is expected to have a signif-
icant increase, the balancing of the electricity grid cannot be
managed with purely mechanical or electrochemical storages.
Also, for the next decades, the three energy sectors: electricity,
heat, and transport will emerge, and hydrogen will work as an
important energy vector in this transition. The question is
how large scales of hydrogen can be stored safely and cost-
efficiently. This review introduces for the first time all the
large-scale storage options for compressed hydrogen and
provides highlights for their strengths and limitations. This
will contribute to the dialogue if hydrogen can work as a
future energy vector.
Evaluating the viability of one alternative cannot be easily
concluded as various factors can tilt the scale in favor of one
technology over another. For example, the cost and efficiency
can change for one technology based on the required size
only, such as geological storage; the lesser the size, the more
costly and unrealistic option it would be. Furthermore,
geological nature and viability are crucial factors for some
technologies. Therefore, a techno-economic chain analysis
needs to be performed specifically for each case study, which
would identify influential factors that should include but not
limited to:

The distance that hydrogen will be transported and for
how long the hydrogen will be stored

The hydrogen required output pressure

The kind of geological storage which will be used, and how
much losses are expected, which differ from one place to
another depending on the geological nature of the place

Regarding geological storage, how accurate are the losses
that were assumed based on natural gas to that of
hydrogen, the lightest gas on Earth

The application of hydrogen energy storage, would it be for
fueling cars, ships, or power storage?
The knowledge of these factors shall help the decision-
makers to analyze and identify the trade-offs among the
different factors concerning the different technologies based
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
on case by case requirements that can include specific tech-
nical parameters such as discharge or storage size.
On the other hand, most of the technologies discussed in
this study are immature and under development, which
means that the research is still ongoing. Furthermore, the
infrastructure and facilities behind some of the technologies
are massive, which would require significant resources and
costs. As a result, stepping in from the industry sectors is
required to achieve absolute certainty about these technolo-
gies. The findings of this study signal the need for additional
research to understand more about the economic aspects and
some crucial technical parameters for implementing this
system as a part of renewable electricity production. Also,
critical studies to understand the key tenets of adding
hydrogen storage to an energy system with regards to its ef-
fects on CO2 emissions and energy costs are required.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge funding for the sup-
port of this research from The Academy of Finland through
Grant 326346 for profiling funding 5 for Energy Storage. Ahmed
Elberry would like to acknowledge Fortum and Neste foun-
dation for the personal grant provided by the foundation for
this research.
references
[1] Haugom GP. “Building a marine supply infrastructure as part
of a future hydrogen society - industry insights - DNV GL,”
Missing Label with key: page-Annotations-sitename. 2019. https://
www.dnvgl.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Building-a-
marine-supply-infrastructure-as-part-of-a-future-hydrogen-
society.html. [Accessed 15 September 2020].
[2] IEA. Renewables 2019 e market analysis and forecast from
2019 to 2024 [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/
reports/renewables-2019. [Accessed 15 September 2020].
[3] Burke K. 4.02 - current perspective on hydrogen and fuel
cells. In: Sayigh A, editor. Comprehensive renewable
energy. Oxford: Elsevier; 2012. p. 29e63.
[4] INDUSTRYARC. Hydrogen market share, size and industry
growth analysis 2019 - 2025. Capacity Manag Rev (CMR)
2019:56405 [Online]. Available: https://www.industryarc.
com/Research/Hydrogen-Market-Research-501664.
[Accessed 15 September 2020].
[5] Research and Markets. Global hydrogen energy storage
market report 2019-2024. Dublin, Ireland [Online]. Available:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/10/18/
1931981/0/en/Global-Hydrogen-Energy-Storage-Market-
Report-2019-2024-Market-Expected-to-Reach-18-2-Billion-
by-2024-Rising-at-a-CAGR-of-5-8.html. [Accessed 15
September 2020].
15685
[6] IEA. The future of hydrogen e analysis. Technology; 2019
[Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-
of-hydrogen. [Accessed 15 September 2020].
[7] Pellow MA, Emmott CJM, Barnhart CJ, Benson SM. Hydrogen
or batteries for grid storage? A net energy analysis. Energy
Environ Sci Jul. 2015;8(7):1938e52. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C4EE04041D.
[8] Data & Statistics. IEA; 2020 [Online]. Available: https://www.
iea.org/data-and-statistics. [Accessed 15 September 2020].
[9] Statistics Time Series. IRENA; 2020 [Online]. Available:
https://www.irena.org/Statistics/View-Data-by-Topic/
Capacity-and-Generation/Statistics-Time-Series. [Accessed
5 October 2020].
[10] Lucas JN, Gonzalo Escribano France s, San Martı́n
Gonza  lez E. Energy security and renewable energy
deployment in the EU: liaisons dangereuses or virtuous
circle? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62(C):1032e46
[Online]. Available: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/
eeerensus/v_3a62_3ay_3a2016_3ai_3ac_3ap_3a1032-1046.
htm. [Accessed 15 September 2020].
[11] Stangro C. Read power cut? How the EU is pulling the plug
on electricity markets online by carlo stagnaro | books.
London Publishing Partnership; 2015.
[12] IRENA. Hydrogen: a renewable energy perspective. Abu
Dhabi; 2019 [Online]. Available:/publications/2019/Sep/
Hydrogen-A-renewable-energy-perspective.
[13] Niermann M, Drünert S, Kaltschmitt M, Bonhoff K. Liquid
organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) e techno-economic
analysis of LOHCs in a defined process chain. Energy
Environ Sci Jan. 2019;12(1):290e307. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C8EE02700E.
[14] Robinius M, et al. “Comparative analysis of infrastructures:
hydrogen fueling and electric charging of vehicles.
undefined. 2017. /paper/Comparative-Analysis-of-
Infrastructures%3A-Hydrogen-Robinius-Kuckertz/
0343be56d83f6436a56f8736b0a67e4e0604058b, . [Accessed 15
September 2020].
[15] Ahmadi P, Kjeang E. Realistic simulation of fuel economy
and life cycle metrics for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int J
Energy Res 2017;41(5):714e27. https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.3672.
[16] FSEC. Hydrogen basics - storage. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/
en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/storage.htm. [Accessed 15
September 2020].
[17] Sheffield JW, Martin KB, Folkson R. 5 - electricity and
hydrogen as energy vectors for transportation vehicles. In:
Folkson R, editor. Alternative Fuels and advanced vehicle
Technologies for improved environmental performance.
Woodhead Publishing; 2014. p. 117e37.
[18] Krishna R, et al. Hydrogen storage for energy application.
Hydrog. Storage Sep. 2012. https://doi.org/10.5772/51238.
[19] Ni M. An overview of hydrogen storage technologies. Energy
Explor Exploit Jun. 2006;24(3):197e209. https://doi.org/
10.1260/014459806779367455.
[20] Saha R, Pan S, Chattaraj PK. Chapter 10 - hydrogen storage
in all-metal and nonmetal aromatic clusters. In:
Cheong KY, Impellizzeri G, Fraga MA, editors. Emerging
Materials for energy Conversion and storage. Elsevier;
2018. p. 329e62.
[21] Tarasov BP, et al. Metal hydride hydrogen storage and
compression systems for energy storage technologies. Int J
Hydrogen Energy Aug. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.07.085.
[22] Aakko-Saksa PT, Cook C, Kiviaho J, Repo T. Liquid organic
hydrogen carriers for transportation and storing of
renewable energy e review and discussion. J Power Sources
Aug. 2018;396:803e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2018.04.011.
15686 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
[23] Catizzone E, Freda C, Braccio G, Frusteri F, Bonura G.
Dimethyl ether as circular hydrogen carrier: catalytic
aspects of hydrogenation/dehydrogenation steps. J. Energy
Chem. Oct. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jechem.2020.09.040.
[24] Santasalo-Aarnio A, et al. Application of synthetic
renewable methanol to power the future propulsion. In:
SAE technical papers; Sep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.4271/
2020-01-2151. 2020-01e2151.
[25] Hirscher M. Handbook of hydrogen storage: new materials
for future energy storage. Wiley; 2010.
[26] Hirscher M, et al. Materials for hydrogen-based energy
storage e past, recent progress and future outlook. J Alloys
Compd Jun. 2020;827:153548. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jallcom.2019.153548.
[27] Prabhukhot Prachi R, M.M W, A.C G. A review on solid state
hydrogen storage material. Adv. Energy Power Jun.
2016;4(2):11e22. https://doi.org/10.13189/aep.2016.040202.
[28] Niaz S, Manzoor T, Pandith AH. Hydrogen storage:
materials, methods and perspectives. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev Oct. 2015;50:457e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.05.011.
[29] Radowitz. World’s first liquid hydrogen fuel cell cruise ship
planned for Norway’s fjords | Recharge. Recharge | Latest
renewable energy news; 2020. https://www.rechargenews.
com/transition/world-s-first-liquid-hydrogen-fuel-cell-
cruise-ship-planned-for-norway-s-fjords/2-1-749070.
[Accessed 15 September 2020].
[30] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Borns DJ. Geologic storage of hydrogen:
scaling up to meet city transportation demands. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(28):28. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2014.07.121.
[31] Lemieux A, Sharp K, Shkarupin A. Preliminary assessment
of underground hydrogen storage sites in Ontario, Canada.
Int J Hydrogen Energy Jun. 2019;44(29):15193e204. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.113.
[32] Zohuri B. Hydrogen storage processes and technologies. In:
Zohuri B, editor. Hydrogen energy: Challenges and
Solutions for a cleaner future. Cham: Springer International
Publishing; 2019. p. 257e79.
[33] Barthelemy H, Weber M, Barbier F. Hydrogen storage: recent
improvements and industrial perspectives. Int J Hydrogen
Energy Mar. 2017;42(11):7254e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.03.178.
[34] Bünger U, Michalski J, Crotogino F, Kruck O. 7 - large-scale
underground storage of hydrogen for the grid integration of
renewable energy and other applications. In: Ball M,
Basile A, Vezirog lu TN, editors. Compendium of hydrogen
energy. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 133e63.
[35] Dagdougui H, Sacile R, Bersani C, Ouammi A. Chapter 4 -
hydrogen storage and distribution: implementation
scenarios. In: Dagdougui H, Sacile R, Bersani C, Ouammi A,
editors. Hydrogen Infrastructure for energy applications.
Academic Press; 2018. p. 37e52.
[36] Panfilov M. Underground and pipeline hydrogen storage. In:
Compendium of hydrogen energy: hydrogen storage,
distribution and infrastructure. Woodhead Publishing; 2016.
[37] Preuster P, Alekseev A, Wasserscheid P. Hydrogen storage
technologies for future energy systems. Annu. Rev. Chem.
Biomol. Eng. 2017;8(1):445e71. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-chembioeng-060816-101334.
[38] Ananthachar V, Duffy JJ. Efficiencies of hydrogen storage
systems onboard fuel cell vehicles. Sol Energy May
2005;78(5):687e94. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2004.02.008.
[39] Kautz CH, Heron PRL, Loverude ME, McDermott LC. Student
understanding of the ideal gas law, Part I: a macroscopic
perspective. Am J Phys Oct. 2005;73(11):1055e63. https://
doi.org/10.1119/1.2049286.
[40] Makridis SS. Hydrogen storage and compression. In:
Methane and hydrogen for energy storage; 2016. p. 1e28.
[41] Leon A. Hydrogen storage. In: Le on A, editor. Hydrogen
technology: Mobile and portable Applications. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 81e128.
[42] Wischnewski B. Online - calculation - methane.
peacesoftware.de; 2020. http://www.peacesoftware.de/
einigewerte/methan_e.html. [Accessed 26 March 2020].
[43] Andersson J, Gro € nkvist S. Large-scale storage of hydrogen.
Int J Hydrogen Energy May 2019;44(23):11901e19. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.063.
[44] Wolf E. Chapter 9 - large-scale hydrogen energy storage. In:
Moseley PT, Garche J, editors. Electrochemical energy
Storage for renewable Sources and grid balancing.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 129e42.
[45] Zheng J, Li L, Chen R, Xu P, Kai F. High pressure steel storage
vessels used in hydrogen refueling station. J Pressure Vessel
Technol Feb. 2008;130(1). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2826453.
[46] Bossel U, Eliasson B. Energy and the hydrogen economy
[Online]. Available: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_
economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf.
[47] Møller KT, Jensen TR, Akiba E, Li H. Hydrogen - a sustainable
energy carrier. Prog. Nat. Sci. Mater. Int. Feb.
2017;27(1):34e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2016.12.014.
[48] Gresh MT. Chapter 2 - thermodynamics. In: Gresh MT,
editor. Compressor performance. 3rd ed. Butterworth-
Heinemann; 2018. p. 13e30.
[49] Stewart M. 7 - compressor fundamentals. In: Stewart M,
editor. Surface production operations. Boston: Gulf
Professional Publishing; 2019. p. 457e525.
[50] Sdanghi G, Maranzana G, Celzard A, Fierro V. Review of the
current technologies and performances of hydrogen
compression for stationary and automotive applications.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev Mar. 2019;102:150e70. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.028.
[51] Sirosh N, Niedzwiecki A. Development of storage tanks. In:
Leon A, editor. Hydrogen technology: Mobile and portable
Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 291e310.
[52] Barilo NF, Weiner SC, James CW. Overview of the DOE
hydrogen safety, codes and standards program part 2:
hydrogen and fuel cells: emphasizing safety to enable
commercialization. Int J Hydrogen Energy Mar.
2017;42(11):7625e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.04.070.
[53] Ohi JM. Hydrogen codes and standards: an overview of U.S.
DOE activities. NREL 2006;8.
[54] Rivkin C, Burgess R, Buttner W. Hydrogen technologies
safety guide. Jan. 2015. p. 1169773. https://doi.org/10.2172/
1169773. NREL/TP–5400-60948.
[55] Richaud E, Verdu J, Fayolle B. 10 - tensile properties of
polypropylene fibres. In: Bunsell AR, editor. Handbook of
tensile Properties of Textile and technical fibres. Woodhead
Publishing; 2009. p. 315e31.
[56] Michler T, Lindner M, Eberle U, Meusinger J. 3 - assessing
hydrogen embrittlement in automotive hydrogen tanks. In:
Gangloff RP, Somerday BP, editors. Gaseous hydrogen
Embrittlement of Materials in energy technologies, vol. 2.
Woodhead Publishing; 2012. p. 94e125.
[57] Chapter 5.2 - hydrogen storage and transport technologies.
In: de Miranda PEV, editor. Science and Engineering of
hydrogen-based energy technologies. Academic Press; 2019.
p. 221e8.
[58] Michler T. Austenitic stainless steels. In: Reference module
in materials science and materials engineering. Elsevier;
2016.
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
[59] Züttel A, Borgschulte A, Schlapbach L. Hydrogen as a future
energy carrier. 2008. Wiley. Wiley.
[60] Pollet BG, Staffell I, Shang JL, Molkov V. 22 - fuel-cell
(hydrogen) electric hybrid vehicles. In: Folkson R, editor.
Alternative Fuels and advanced vehicle Technologies for
improved environmental performance. Woodhead
Publishing; 2014. p. 685e735.
[61] Ferreira-Aparicio P, Conde JJ, Chaparro AM. 3 - hydrogen
storage options for portable fuel-cell systems. In: Ferreira-
Aparicio P, Chaparro AM, editors. Portable hydrogen energy
systems. Academic Press; 2018. p. 41e50.
[62] Hua TQ, et al. Technical assessment of compressed
hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.
Int J Hydrogen Energy Feb. 2011;36(4):3037e49. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.11.090.
[63] Yoon SJ, Lee HJ, Yoon KB, Ma YW, Baek UB. Hydrogen
damage in 34CrMo4 pressure vessel steel with high tensile
strength. J Mech Sci Technol Feb. 2018;32(2):637e46. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12206-018-0111-7.
[64] Franzky S. High-pressure 825 bar hydrogen storage. Fuel
Cell Bull Sep. 2002;2002(9):9e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1464-2859(02)09026-0.
[65] Nash D, Aklil D, Johnson E, Gazey R, Ortisi V. 4.05 - hydrogen
storage: compressed gas. In: Sayigh A, editor. Comprehensive
renewable energy. Oxford: Elsevier; 2012. p. 131e55.
[66] Tzimas E, Filiou C, Peteves SD, Veyret JB. Hydrogen storage:
state-of-the-art and future perspective [Online]. Available:
http://inis.iaea.org/Search/search.aspx?orig_q¼RN:
36058748. [Accessed 2 April 2020].
[67] Barthe  le
my H. Hydrogen storage e industrial prospectives.
Int J Hydrogen Energy Nov. 2012;37(22):17364e72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.04.121.
[68] Fowler CP, Orifici AC, Wang CH. A review of toroidal
composite pressure vessel optimisation and damage
tolerant design for high pressure gaseous fuel storage. Int J
Hydrogen Energy Dec. 2016;41(47):22067e89. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.10.039.
[69] Zhang M, Lv H, Kang H, Zhou W, Zhang C. A literature
review of failure prediction and analysis methods for
composite high-pressure hydrogen storage tanks. Int J
Hydrogen Energy Oct. 2019;44(47):25777e99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.001.
[70] USDRIVE. Hydrogen delivery technical team roadmap. 2013
[Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2014/02/f8/hdtt_roadmap_june2013.pdf.
[71] DeWald AA. Hill Engineering. In: What is Residual Stress?
[Blog]; May 30, 2017. Available: https://hill-engineering.com/
general-interest/what-is-residual-stress/. [Accessed 30
March 2020].
[72] Moradi R, Groth KM. Hydrogen storage and delivery: review
of thems state of the art technologies and risk and
reliability analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy May
2019;44(23):12254e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.03.041.
[73] Hollaway LC. 20 - advanced fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composite materials for sustainable energy technologies.
In: Bai J, editor. Advanced fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)
Composites for structural applications. Woodhead
Publishing; 2013. p. 737e79.
[74] CW. The first commercial Type V composite pressure
vessel. 2012.
[75] Infinite Composites. Infinite-composite-pressure-vessels.
2021. https://www.infinitecomposites.com/infinite-
composite-pressure-vessels#APPS. [Accessed 31 January
2021].
[76] Linerless Tanks. Composite Technology Development, Inc.;
2021 [Online]. Available: https://www.ctd-materials.com/
experience/linerless-tanks/. [Accessed 31 January 2021].
15687
[77] NREL. Hydrogen technologies safety guide. Golden, CO
(United States): National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL); Jan.
2015. https://doi.org/10.2172/1169773. NREL/TP-5400-60948.
[78] Eliezer D, Silverstein R. Recent studies of hydrogen
embrittlement in structural materials. Procedia Struct.
Integr. Jan. 2018;13:2233e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.prostr.2018.12.135.
[79] Dwivedi SK, Vishwakarma M. Hydrogen embrittlement in
different materials: a review. Int J Hydrogen Energy Nov.
2018;43(46):21603e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.09.201.
[80] Adsorption, Absorption and Desorption - What’s the
Difference? Chromatography Today; 2014 [Online].
Available: https://www.chromatographytoday.com/news/
hplc-uhplc/31/breaking-news/adsorption-absorption-and-
desorption-what39s-the-difference/31397. [Accessed 31
March 2020].
[81] Mason EA. Gas. Encyclopedia Britannica; November 11,
2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/gas-state-of-
matter. [Accessed 31 March 2020].
[82] Wang Z. Chapter 5 - design of the receiver system. In:
Wang Z, editor. Design of solar thermal power plants.
Academic Press; 2019. p. 319e86.
[83] Ogin SL, Brøndsted P, Zangenberg J. 1 - composite materials:
constituents, architecture, and generic damage. In:
Talreja R, Varna J, editors. Modeling damage, Fatigue and
Failure of composite materials. Woodhead Publishing; 2016.
p. 3e23.
[84] Chawla KK. Glass fibers. In: Reference module in materials
science and materials engineering. Elsevier; 2016.
[85] Ertekin M. 7 - Aramid fibers. In: Seydibeyog €
 lu MO,
Mohanty AK, Misra M, editors. Fiber Technology for fiber-
reinforced composites. Woodhead Publishing; 2017.
p. 153e67.
[86] Weber M, et al. Damage tolerance OF compressed gaseous
hydrogen composite vessels. In: Presented at the
EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS,
Spain; 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.escm.eu.org/
eccm16/assets/0185.pdf.
[87] Kobayashi S, Imai T, Wakayama S. Burst strength
evaluation of the FW-CFRP hybrid composite pipes
considering plastic deformation of the liner. Composites
Part A 2007;5(38):1344e53. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesa.2006.10.011.
[88] Zheng J, et al. Experimental and numerical studies on the
bonfire test of high-pressure hydrogen storage vessels. Int J
Hydrogen Energy Aug. 2010;35(15):8191e8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.092.
[89] Valenciaa LB, Ruban S. Assessment of the failure mechanism
of composite cylinders for hydrogen applications in case of
fire. USA: presented at the fire and explosion hazards,
proceedings of the 7th internsational seminar; 2013. https://
doi.org/10.3850/978-981-07-5936-0_14-01.
[90] Zheng J, Liu X, Xu P, Liu P, Zhao Y, Yang J. Development of
high pressure gaseous hydrogen storage technologies. Int J
Hydrogen Energy Jan. 2012;37(1):1048e57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.02.125.
[91] Houchins C. 2019 DOE hydrogen and fuel cells program
review hydrogen storage cost analysis (ST100) [Online].
Available: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/
review19/st100_james_2019_o.pdf. [Accessed 2 March 2020].
[92] Abe JO, Popoola API, Ajenifuja E, Popoola OM. Hydrogen
energy, economy and storage: review and recommendation.
Int J Hydrogen Energy Jun. 2019;44(29):15072e86. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.068.
[93] MAHYTEC. Hydrogen storage solutions. MAHYTEC; 2020.
https://www.h2fc-fair.com/hm12/images/exhibitors/
mahytec001.pdf. [Accessed 2 March 2020].
15688 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
[94] Bai Y, Bai Q. 19 - subsea manifolds. In: Bai Y, Bai Q, editors.
Subsea engineering handbook. 2nd ed. Boston: Gulf
Professional Publishing; 2019. p. 517e71.
[95] NREL. Hydrogen station compression, storage, and
dispensing technical status and costs,” USA. Technical;
2014 [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy14osti/58564.pdf.
[96] Xu P, Zheng J, Liu P, Chen R, Kai F, Li L. Risk identification
and control of stationary high-pressure hydrogen storage
vessels. J Loss Prev Process Ind Nov. 2009;22(6):950e3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2008.08.008.
[97] Zheng J, et al. “High pressure 98 MPa multifunctional steel
layered vessels for stationary hydrogen storage,” presented
at the ASME 2016 pressure vessels and piping conference.
Dec. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2016-63315.
[98] Standardization administration of China [PDF] GB/T 26466-
2011 ..English, https://www.chinesestandard.net/PDF/
English.aspx/GBT26466-2011. [Accessed 5 March 2020].
[99] Zheng J. Research state of the art and knowledge gaps in
high pressure hydrogen storage [Online]. Available: https://
hysafe.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/07_Research-
State-of-the-Art-and-Knowledge-Gaps-in-High-Pressure-
Hydrogen-Storage.pdf. [Accessed 5 March 2020].
[100] Vullo V. Thick-walled circular cylinders under internal and/
or external pressure stressed in the linear elastic range. In:
Circular cylinders and pressure vessels: stress analysis and
design. Springer International Publishing; 2014.
[101] McKeen LW. 1 - introduction to fatigue of plastics and
elastomers. In: McKeen LW, editor. Fatigue and tribological
properties of plastics and elastomers. 3rd ed. William
Andrew Publishing; 2016. p. 1e26.
[102] Jawad M, Wang Y, Feng Z. Steeleconcrete composite
pressure vessels for hydrogen storage at high pressures. J
Pressure Vessel Technol Apr. 2020;142(2). https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.4044164.
[103] Feng Z, Wang Y, Lim YC, Chen J, Gibson B. FY 2016 annual
progress report- steel concrete composite vessel for 875 bar
stationary hydrogen storage. Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program; 2016 [Online].
Available: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/
progress16/iii_5_feng_2016.pdf.
[104] L. J. Fingersh, "Wind turbine tower for storing hydrogen and
energy," U.S. Patent US7471010B1, Dec. 30, 2008. Available:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7471010B1/en,
Accessed on April 9, 2020.
[105] Kottenstette R, Cotrell J. Hydrogen storage in wind turbine
towers. Int J Hydrogen Energy Sep. 2004;29(12):1277e88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2003.12.003.
[106] Official data, “$88 in 2003 / 2016 | inflation calculator,”.
https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2004?
endYear¼2016&amount¼88. [Accessed 8 April 2020].
[107] NREL. Hydrogen storage in wind turbine towers: cost
analysis and conceptual design. 2003 [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/34851.
pdf.
[108] Bapu BRR, Karthikeyan J, Reddy KVK. “Hydrogen storage in
wind turbine tower d a review. In: Frontiers in automobile
and mechanical engineering -2010; Nov. 2010. p. 308e12.
https://doi.org/10.1109/FAME.2010.5714852.
[109] Tietze V, Luhr S. Near-surface bulk storage of hydrogen. In:
Transition to renewable energy systems. John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd; 2013. p. 659e90.
[110] Ohta T. Energy carriers and conversion systems with
emphasis on hydrogen - volume II. EOLSS Publications;
2009.
[111] Tietze V, Luhr S, Stolten D. Bulk storage vessels for
compressed and liquid hydrogen. In: Hydrogen science and
Engineering : materials, processes, systems and technology.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2016. p. 659e90.
[112] Mirzaei Aliabadi M, Pourhasan A, Mohammadfam I. Risk
modelling of a hydrogen gasholder using Fuzzy Bayesian
Network (FBN). Int J Hydrogen Energy Jan.
2020;45(1):1177e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.10.198.
[113] Kruck O, Crotogino F, Prelicz R, Rudolph T. Assessment of
the potential, the actors and relevant business cases for
large scale and seasonal storage of renewable electricity by
hydrogen underground storage in Europe. 2013 [Online].
Available: http://hyunder.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/
D3.1_Overview-of-all-known-underground-storage-
technologies.pdf.
[114] Fuoli F, Zeitung L. Für 21 Millionen entsteht ein riesiger
Erdgasspeicher. Limmattaler Zeitung; 2012.
[115] Inflationtool. EUR inflation calculator - euro (1991-2020).
2020. https://www.inflationtool.com/euro?
amount¼45&year1¼2015&year2¼2019. [Accessed 18
September 2020].
[116] NPROXX. Stationary hydrogen storage applications.
NPROXX; 2020. https://www.nproxx.com/hydrogen-storage/
stationary-applications/. [Accessed 14 April 2020].
[117] Tarkowski R. Underground hydrogen storage:
characteristics and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
May 2019;105:86e94. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2019.01.051.
[118] Mazarei M, Davarpanah A, Ebadati A, Mirshekari B. The
feasibility analysis of underground gas storage during an
integration of improved condensate recovery processes. J.
Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. Mar. 2019;9(1):397e408. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13202-018-0470-3.
[119] Stone HBJ, Veldhuis I, Richardson RN. Underground
hydrogen storage in the UK. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. Jan.
2009;313(1):217e26. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP313.13.
[120] van der Meer LGH, Obdam A. Is carbon dioxide in case of
natural gas storage a feasible cushion gas? TNO Built
Enviroment and Geosciences 2008 [Online]. Available:
https://www.co2-cato.org/cato-download/672/20090917_
123328_3.1-7-08-2008-U-R781B_LvdMþAO_CATO_rv.pdf.
[121] Feldmann F, Hagemann B, Ganzer L, Panfilov M. Numerical
simulation of hydrodynamic and gas mixing processes in
underground hydrogen storages. Environ. Earth Sci. Aug.
2016;75(16):1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5948-z.
[122] Flanigan O. Chapter 6 - characteristics of underground
storage. In: Flanigan O, editor. Underground gas storage
facilities. Houston: Gulf Professional Publishing; 1995.
p. 54e67.
[123] Energy storage - Underground gas storage. Uniper; 2020
[Online]. Available: https://www.uniper.energy/storage/
what-we-do/underground-gas-storage. [Accessed 2
November 2020].
[124] Speight JG. 5 - recovery, storage, and transportation. In:
Speight JG, editor. Natural gas. 2nd ed. Boston: Gulf
Professional Publishing; 2019. p. 149e86.
[125] US EPA. General information about injection wells. US EPA;
2015. https://www.epa.gov/uic/general-information-about-
injection-wells. [Accessed 2 November 2020].
[126] Clark JE, Bonura DK, Van Voorhees RF. An overview of
injection well history in the United States of America. In:
Tsang C-F, Apps JA, editors. “. Developments in water
science, vol. 52. Elsevier; 2005. p. 3e12.
[127] Mohamed A-MO, Paleologos EK. Chapter 5 - groundwater.
In: Mohamed A-MO, Paleologos EK, editors. Fundamentals
of geoenvironmental engineering. Butterworth-
Heinemann; 2018. p. 129e59.
[128] The south/southwest (S/SW) technical outreach services.
Understanding the principles of groundwater. 2003 [Online].
 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
Available: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/
fuseaction/display.files/fileID/14520#:~:text¼A%20confining
%20layer%20is%20a,often%20act%20as%20confining%
20layer.
[129] Amid A, Mignard D, Wilkinson M. Seasonal storage of
hydrogen in a depleted natural gas reservoir. Int J Hydrogen
Energy Apr. 2016;41(12):5549e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.02.036.
[130] Chen Z, Zhou F, Rahman SS. Effect of cap rock thickness
and permeability on geological storage of CO2: laboratory
test and numerical simulation. Energy Explor Exploit Dec.
2014. Accessed: Nov. 02, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0144-5987.32.6.943.
[131] Hyne NJ. Identification of common rocks and minerals. In:
Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration,
drilling & production. 4th ed. PENNWELL; 2019.
[132] Reitenbach V, Ganzer L, Albrecht D, Hagemann B. Influence
of added hydrogen on underground gas storage: a review of
key issues. Environ. Earth Sci. Jun. 2015;73(11):6927e37.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4176-2.
[133] Hemme C, Van Berk W. Hydrogeochemical modeling to
identify potential risks of underground hydrogen storage in
depleted gas fields. Appl Sci Nov. 2018;8(11):11. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app8112282.
[134] Donadei S, Schneider G-S. Chapter 6 - compressed air
energy storage in underground formations. In: Letcher TM,
editor. Storing energy. Oxford: Elsevier; 2016. p. 113e33.
[135] Kayfeci M, Kecebas A. “Hydrogen storage,” in solar hydrogen
production | scribd. Academic Press; 2019. p. 106.
[136] Bales RC. HYDROLOGY, floods and droughts | overview. In:
North GR, Pyle J, Zhang F, editors. Encyclopedia of
atmospheric sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford: Academic Press;
2015. p. 180e4.
[137] Crotogino F. Chapter 20 - larger scale hydrogen storage. In:
Letcher TM, editor. Storing energy. Oxford: Elsevier; 2016.
p. 411e29.
[138] Belz K, Kuznik F, Werner KF, Schmidt T, Ruck WKL. 17 -
thermal energy storage systems for heating and hot water
in residential buildings. In: Cabeza LF, editor. Advances in
thermal energy storage systems. Woodhead Publishing;
2015. p. 441e65.
[139] Scafidi J, Wilkinson M, Gilfillan SMV, Heinemann N,
Haszeldine RS. A quantitative assessment of the hydrogen
storage capacity of the UK continental shelf. Int. J. Hydrog.
Energy, Jan. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.12.106.
[140] Kapusta K, Stan  czyk K, Wiatowski M, Chec ko J.
Environmental aspects of a field-scale underground coal
gasification trial in a shallow coal seam at the Experimental
Mine Barbara in Poland. Fuel Nov. 2013;113:196e208. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.05.015.
[141] De SK, Prabu V. Experimental studies on humidified/water
influx O2 gasification for enhanced hydrogen production in
the context of underground coal gasification. Int J Hydrogen
Energy May 2017;42(20):14089e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.04.112.
[142] Roa Pinto JS, Bachaud P, Fargetton T, Ferrando N, Jeannin L,
Louvet F. Modeling phase equilibrium of hydrogen and
natural gas in brines: application to storage in salt caverns.
Int J Hydrogen Energy Jan. 2021;46(5):4229e40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.242.
[143] Zivar D, Kumar S, Foroozesh J. Underground hydrogen
storage: a comprehensive review. Int J Hydrogen Energy
Sep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.138.
[144] Consulting ALL. A look at underground natural gas storage
operation and regulation IN the United States. In: Presented
at the GWPC 2016 UIC Conference, Colorado,USA; 2016
15689
[Online]. Available: http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/
event-sessions/Alleman_Nathan.pdf.
[145] Gabrielli P, Poluzzi A, Kramer GJ, Spiers C, Mazzotti M,
Gazzani M. Seasonal energy storage for zero-emissions
multi-energy systems via underground hydrogen storage.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev Apr. 2020;121:109629. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109629.
[146] Crotogino F. Chapter 19 - traditional bulk energy
storagedcoal and underground natural gas and oil storage.
In: Letcher TM, editor. Storing energy. Oxford: Elsevier;
2016. p. 391e409.
[147] Glamheden R, Curtis P. Excavation of a cavern for high-
pressure storage of natural gas. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol Jan. 2006;21(1):56e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tust.2005.06.002.
[148] Johansson F, Spross J, Damasceno D, Johansson J, Stille H.
Investigation of research needs regarding the storage of
hydrogen gas in lined rock caverns: prestudy for Work
Package 2.3 in HYBRIT Research Program 1. Technical: KTH
Royal Institute of Technology; 2018 [Online]. Available:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn¼urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-231034.
[Accessed 3 November 2020].
[149] He vin G. Underground storage ofHydrogen in salt caverns.
Nov. 2019 [Online]. Available: http://www.energnet.eu/
sites/default/files/3-Hevin-Underground%20Storage%
20H2%20in%20Salt.pdf.
[150] DBI GUT. The effects of hydrogen injection in natural gas
networks for the Dutch underground storages.pdf,” the
ministry of Economic Affairs. 2017 [Online]. Available:
https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2017/07/The%
20effects%20of%20hydrogen%20injection%20in%20natural
%20gas%20networks%20for%20the%20Dutch%
20underground%20storages.pdf.
[151] Quarton CJ, Samsatli S. Power-to-gas for injection into the
gas grid: what can we learn from real-life projects,
economic assessments and systems modelling? Renew
Sustain Energy Rev Dec. 2018;98:302e16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.007.
[152] Melaina MW, Antonia O, Penev M. “Blending hydrogen into
natural gas pipeline networks: a review of key issues,”
NREL. USA: Technica; Mar. 2013 [Online]. Available: https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/51995.pdf.
[153] Barthe  le
my H. Effects of pressure and purity on the
hydrogen embrittlement of steels. Int J Hydrogen Energy
Feb. 2011;36(3):2750e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2010.05.029.
[154] Schmidtchen U. Fuels e SAFETY | hydrogen: overview. In:
Garche J, editor. Encyclopedia of electrochemical power
sources. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009. p. 519e27.
[155] Hamedi M, Farahani RZ, Esmaeilian G. 19 - optimization in
natural gas network planning. In: Farahani RZ, Rezapour S,
Kardar L, editors. Logistics Operations and management.
London: Elsevier; 2011. p. 393e420.
[156] Hodges J, Geary W, Graham S, Hooker P, Goff R. RR1047
Injecting hydrogen into the gas network - a literature
search. RR1047. Derbyshire, UK: Health and Safety
Laboratory; 2015. p. 1e38. Available: https://www.hse.gov.
uk/research/rrpdf/rr1047.pdf.
[157] Okino T, et al. Ultraviolet and visible spectral imaging of
hydrogen flames using an organic photoconductive film
CMOS imager. 2017.
[158] Stewart M. 4 - piping system components. In: Stewart M,
editor. Surface production operations. Boston: Gulf
Professional Publishing; 2016. p. 193e300.
[159] Clegg S, Mancarella P. Storing renewables in the gas
network: modelling of power-to-gas seasonal storage
flexibility in low-carbon power systems. Transm. Distrib.
15690 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 ) 1 5 6 7 1 e1 5 6 9 0
IET Gener. 2016;10(3):566e75. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
gtd.2015.0439.
[160] Mergheni MA, Belhajbrahim MM, Boushaki T, Sautet J-C. A
new combustion method in a burner with three separate
jets. Numer. Exp. Stud. Combust. Engines Veh. Jan. 2020.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90571.
[161] Hughes Baker. Snam and Baker Hughes test world’s first
hydrogen blend turbine for gas networks | Baker Hughes.
https://www.bakerhughes.com/company/news/snam-and-
baker-hughes-test-worlds-first-hydrogen-blend-turbine-
gas-networks. [Accessed 4 November 2020].
[162] IEA. Limits on hydrogen blending in natural gas networks,
2018 e charts e Data & Statistics. IEA; 2020. https://www.
iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/limits-on-hydrogen-
blending-in-natural-gas-networks-2018. [Accessed 16
August 2020].
[163] Radowitz B. German pipeline operators present plan for
world’s largest hydrogen grid | Recharge. Recharge | Latest
renewable energy news; Aug. 05, 2020.
[164] Panfilov M. 4 - underground and pipeline hydrogen storage.
In: Gupta RB, Basile A, Vezirog  lu TN, editors. Compendium
of hydrogen energy. Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 91e115.
[165] Stangeland K, Kalai D, Li H, Yu Z. CO2 methanation: the effect
of catalysts and reaction conditions. Energy Procedia May
2017;105:2022e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.577.
[166] Guerra L, Rossi S, Rodrigues J, Gomes J, Puna J, Santos MT.
Methane production by a combined Sabatier reaction/water
electrolysis process. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. Feb.
2018;6(1):671e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.12.066.
[167] Go€ tz M, et al. Renewable Power-to-Gas: a technological and
economic review. Renew Energy Jan. 2016;85:1371e90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066.
[168] Strobel G, Hagemann B, Huppertz TM, Ganzer L.
Underground bio-methanation: concept and potential.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev May 2020;123:109747. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109747.