TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative analysis of carbon dioxide and hydrogen plume migration in aquifers inspired by the FluidFlower benchmark study
AU - Misaghi Bonabi, Amin
AU - van Rooijen, Willemijn
AU - Al Kobaisi, Mohammed
AU - Vuik, Cornelis
AU - Hajibeygi, Hadi
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Large-scale geological storages of hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in saline aquifers present feasible options for a sustainable energy future. We compared the plume migration of CO2 and H2 in aquifers using the FluidFlower benchmark, incorporating the state-of-the-art thermophysical and petrophysical properties. The H2 plume, with its higher buoyancy and mobility compared to CO2, remains predominantly in the gas phase due to its lower solubility, increasing the chances of escaping through fractures or migration to distant regions. This additionally leads to a higher pressurized reservoir, which, along with higher buoyancy, increases the chance of caprock penetration. Dissolution trapping of CO2 into brine increases over time due to its fingering, while H2 does not show fingering. Our findings show that while geological carbon storage (GCS) benefits significantly from all structural, dissolution, and residual trapping, underground hydrogen storage (UHS) relies mainly on structural trapping, making the integrity of sealing elements of the system a key factor in its performance.
AB - Large-scale geological storages of hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in saline aquifers present feasible options for a sustainable energy future. We compared the plume migration of CO2 and H2 in aquifers using the FluidFlower benchmark, incorporating the state-of-the-art thermophysical and petrophysical properties. The H2 plume, with its higher buoyancy and mobility compared to CO2, remains predominantly in the gas phase due to its lower solubility, increasing the chances of escaping through fractures or migration to distant regions. This additionally leads to a higher pressurized reservoir, which, along with higher buoyancy, increases the chance of caprock penetration. Dissolution trapping of CO2 into brine increases over time due to its fingering, while H2 does not show fingering. Our findings show that while geological carbon storage (GCS) benefits significantly from all structural, dissolution, and residual trapping, underground hydrogen storage (UHS) relies mainly on structural trapping, making the integrity of sealing elements of the system a key factor in its performance.
KW - Flow in porous media
KW - Geological carbon dioxide storage
KW - Multiphase flow
KW - Simulation
KW - Trapping
KW - Underground hydrogen storage
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105004261669&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.04.401
DO - 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.04.401
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105004261669
SN - 0360-3199
VL - 135
SP - 56
EP - 68
JO - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
JF - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
ER -
