Comparative analysis of carbon dioxide and hydrogen plume migration in aquifers inspired by the FluidFlower benchmark study
A. Misaghi Bonabi (TU Delft - Numerical Analysis)
W.A. van Rooijen (TU Delft - Reservoir Engineering)
M.S.K. Al Kobaisi (TU Delft - Numerical Analysis)
Cornelis Vuik (TU Delft - Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics)
H. Hajibeygi (TU Delft - Reservoir Engineering)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
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.
help_outline