4.6 Article

Numerical simulation of hydrodynamic and gas mixing processes in underground hydrogen storages

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 75, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-016-5948-z

关键词

Compositional two-phase flow; DuMu(x); Numerical modeling; Underground hydrogen storage; Case study; Depleted gas reservoir; Reservoir simulation

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The storage of hydrogen in underground reservoirs comprises a potential solution for balancing the fluctuating energy production from wind and solar power plants. In this concept, electrolysers are used to transform excessively produced electrical energy into chemical energy in the form of hydrogen. The resulting large volumes of hydrogen are temporarily stored in subsurface formations purely or in mixture with other gases. In times of high energy demand, the chemical energy is transformed back into electricity by fuel cells or engine generators. Key aspects in the development period and the subsequent cyclic operations of such a storage are the hydrodynamic behavior of hydrogen and its interaction with residual fluids in the reservoir. Mathematically, the behavior can be described by a compositional two-phase flow model with water and gas as phases and all relevant chemical species as components (H-2, H2O, CH4, CO2, N-2, H2S, etc.). The spatial variation of the gas phase composition between injected and initial gas leads to density and viscosity contrasts which influence the displacement process. The mixing of gases with different compositions is governed by molecular diffusion or mechanical dispersion dependent on the flow velocity. In the present paper, a numerical case study in a depleted gas reservoir was performed. The storage was charged with hydrogen for 5 years. Subsequently, 5 years of seasonal cyclic operation were simulated to predict injection and production rates, pressure response and composition of the produced gas stream

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据