Discover the SciOpen Platform and Achieve Your Research Goals with Ease.
Search articles, authors, keywords, DOl and etc.
Underground hydrogen storage in depleted shale gas reservoirs has emerged as a promising option for large-scale energy storage, with feasibility assessments relying on compositional simulations. The fidelity of such simulations hinges on accurate representation of key physicochemical processes, particularly gas adsorption, which governs phase partitioning in shale formations. However, adsorption is often treated deterministically in large-scale simulations, while optimization efforts emphasize operational and geological parameters. This minireview summarizes prevailing compositional simulation workflows and key performance metrics for shale and further synthesizes recent advances and gaps in H2/CH4 competitive adsorption, highlighting the scarcity and experimental difficulty of multicomponent adsorption data. The propagation of adsorption-related uncertainty to large-scale predictions is further discussed. An illustrative scenario demonstrates that different multicomponent adsorption models can significantly alter the predicted fraction of adsorbed H2 and the recovery factor. The magnitude of these variations can be comparable to or even exceed improvements achieved through typical operational optimizations. Such discrepancies indicate that adsorption representation is not a non-significant modeling input but a central factor influencing evaluation outcomes. These findings underscore the need to explicitly account for competitive adsorption in assessing underground hydrogen storage in shales. Furthermore, adsorption uncertainty should be systematically quantified and integrated into modeling workflows to secure the high-fidelity of compositional modeling underground hydrogen storage in shales.
This article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments on this article