ArticleiScience2024
Techno-economic analysis of underground hydrogen storage in Europe.
Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- User-driven potential for scalable, cost-effective, and flexible vehicle-to-grid resources in China.iScience · 2026Article
- Long-duration electricity storage needs for coping with Dunkelflaute events in Europe.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Large-Scale Hydrogen Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers: Multiphase Flow, Geochemical-Microbial Interactions, and Economic Feasibility.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Site Selection for Underground Hydrogen Storage in Porous Media: Critical Review and Outlook.Energy & fuels : an American Chemical Society journal · 2025Review
- Optimal scheduling of electricity and hydrogen integrated energy system considering multiple uncertainties.iScience · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydrogen storage is crucial to developing secure renewable energy systems to meet the European Union's 2050 carbon neutrality objectives. However, a knowledge gap exists concerning the site-specific performance and economic viability of utilizing underground gas storage (UGS) sites for hydrogen storage in Europe. We compile information on European UGS sites to assess potential hydrogen storage capacity and evaluate the associated current and future costs. The total hydrogen storage potential in Europe is 349 TWh of working gas energy (WGE), with site-specific capital costs ranging from $10 million to $1 billion. Porous media and salt caverns, boasting a minimum storage capacity of 0.5 TWh WGE, exhibit levelized costs of $1.5 and $0.8 per kilogram of hydrogen, respectively. It is estimated that future levelized costs associated with hydrogen storage can potentially decrease to as low as $0.4 per kilogram after three experience cycles. Leveraging these techno-economic considerations, we identify suitable storage sites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.