MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can a hydrodynamic model predict the flow evolution of a hydrogen plume in a depleted natural gas reservoir?

2024· article· en· W4401012491 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Sheikhi, M. R. Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMechanicsHydrogenPlumePetroleum engineeringNatural gasEnvironmental scienceWork (physics)Liquid hydrogenThermodynamicsGeologyChemistryPhysicsEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs is a promising solution for storing excess renewable energy on a timescale longer than can be accommodated by salt cavern storage. However, commercial exploitation of the technology in question awaits the resolution of key challenges and uncertainties. Chief among these from a fluid mechanics point of view is to resolve the connection between hydrogen leakage and the mixing of hydrogen and cushion gas. Reduced-order-models examining this question have been developed i.e. by Sheikhi and Flynn (2024), however their work relies much more heavily on fluid mechanics than it does on thermodynamics. It is therefore unclear the extent to which their model predictions are accurate when compared with e.g. the numerical output from reservoir-level simulation packages. Addressing this knowledge gap is the key focus of the present study. To this end, we use OpenGoSim and CMG to numerically resolve hydrogen injection directly below an interbed layer of reduced, but still finite, permeability. The resulting comparison demonstrates that the theoretical model predicts, with generally good accuracy, the overall shape of the gravity current plus the amount of hydrogen that dispersively mixes into the surrounding cushion gas. However, reduced-order-model fidelity suffers when the injection time is long, the draining layer is thin and the interbed layer admits a relatively large drainage. This observation highlights areas of future improvement for the reduced-order-model, which can otherwise be applied, with great computational efficiency, in screening candidate reservoirs for hydrogen storage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Hydrogen EnergySame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207