Thermodynamic and Technical Issues of Hydrogen and Methane-Hydrogen Mixtures Pipeline Transmission
Thermodynamic and Technical Issues of Hydrogen and Methane-Hydrogen Mixtures Pipeline Transmission
Thermodynamic and Technical Issues of Hydrogen and Methane-Hydrogen Mixtures Pipeline Transmission
net/publication/331048757
CITATIONS READS
41 15,240
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Solid and Salt Precipitation Kinetics during CO2 Injection into Reservoir View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tomasz Wlodek on 12 February 2019.
Abstract: The use of hydrogen as a non-emission energy carrier is important for the innovative
development of the power-generation industry. Transmission pipelines are the most efficient
and economic method of transporting large quantities of hydrogen in a number of variants.
A comprehensive hydraulic analysis of hydrogen transmission at a mass flow rate of 0.3 to 3.0 kg/s
(volume flow rates from 12,000 Nm3 /h to 120,000 Nm3 /h) was performed. The methodology was
based on flow simulation in a pipeline for assumed boundary conditions as well as modeling of
fluid thermodynamic parameters for pure hydrogen and its mixtures with methane. The assumed
outlet pressure was 24 bar (g). The pipeline diameter and required inlet pressure were calculated
for these parameters. The change in temperature was analyzed as a function of the pipeline length
for a given real heat transfer model; the assumed temperatures were 5 and 25 ◦ C. The impact of
hydrogen on natural gas transmission is another important issue. The performed analysis revealed
that the maximum participation of hydrogen in natural gas should not exceed 15%–20%, or it has a
negative impact on natural gas quality. In the case of a mixture of 85% methane and 15% hydrogen,
the required outlet pressure is 10% lower than for pure methane. The obtained results present
various possibilities of pipeline transmission of hydrogen at large distances. Moreover, the changes
in basic thermodynamic parameters have been presented as a function of pipeline length for the
adopted assumptions.
1. Introduction
Recent trends in modern economies are focused on greenhouse gas emissions reduction and
mitigation of climate change effects. Countries around the world have begun to shift their energy
production to renewable energy sources (RES). Energy from renewable sources may help mitigate
emissions from traditional fossil fuel energy generation [1]. Implementation of EU energy policy
requires investment in power technologies based on RES. The dynamics of RES development and
application can be traced to the basis of its installed capacity. According to data from 2016 [2],
the highest increase of installed power was observed for wind farms (i.e., 12,490 MW, or 51% of all new
installed capacity in EU) and solar energy power plants (i.e., 6700 MW, or 27.4% of all new installed
capacity in EU). By 2040, RES-based EU technologies will constitute 80% of new installed power, while
after 2030, wind energy is predicted to become the leading electrical energy source [3]. Wind energy,
with significant growth in the RES share it represents, will cause problems associated with an uneven
generation of electrical energy, resulting from variable atmospheric conditions [4]. Frequently, high
electricity generation is possible during periods of low demand for electrical energy (e.g., days off),
whereas during periods of higher demand (evening peak), production is much lower. Moreover,
the use of renewable energy from solar and wind farms is connected with power transmission system
problems because of the irregularity and instability of energy supply [5,6].
Accordingly, a significant development in energy storage technology is required to increase
application of RES in electrical energy generation sector. Power-to-Gas is an example of such technology.
By using this technology, electrical energy can be converted to gaseous fuel (hydrogen). Hydrogen
as an energy carrier can store the largest quantities of energy and has high energy content per mass
unit [4]. This makes hydrogen technology very advantageous from a technological point of view [7].
Hydrogen has great importance as a promising green energy carrier, but practically does not occur
in nature freely, hence it is not the primary source of energy. Hydrogen is usually generated as a
secondary energy carrier from primary sources such as natural gas or wind energy. Hydrogen will
play an important role in the world energy mix in the future [8].
Requirements regarding the proportion of renewable energy sources in national electricity systems
have been described in Directive 2009/28/EC. The general objective of achieving a 20% content of RES
usage by 2020 in the European Union was included in this statement [7,9]. Most of the power generated
in the field of renewable energy sources was comprised of onshore and offshore wind farms. Therefore,
for the further development of renewable energy usage in the power generation sector, it will be
necessary to make progress in the use of energy storage technologies. The use of hydrogen as an
energy storage technology allows the largest amount of energy storage and is distinguished by having
the highest power output. Thus, this technology is very beneficial in technical terms [10–12]. In the
near future, the natural gas system will be used for transmission of the growing volume of alternative
fuels (e.g., hydrogen and biomethane), which will be added to traditional natural gas mixtures.
Recently, projects and concepts for the construction of energy storage sites in salt caverns have
been the main focus related to the development of renewable energy sources. Hydrogen obtained
during the withdrawal of salt caverns has to be transported to the place of its utilization. Pipeline
transmission of hydrogen and the possibility of hydrogen addition to the natural gas transmission
system are still new solutions requiring further research, and have been confirmed by real applications
in a small number of cases. Specific thermodynamic analysis of methane–hydrogen mixtures is a main
novelty of this research, in particular the use of hydrogen to improve natural gas flow parameters in
the pipeline while maintaining quality requirements.
TECHNOLOGICAL
PIPELINE INDUSTRIAL
INSTALLATIONS
WITHDRAWAL
INJECTION
SALT
CAVERN
Hydrogen is commonly considered a gas similar to methane (i.e., the main component of
Hydrogen is commonly considered a gas similar to methane (i.e., the main component of
natural gas). Therefore, most technological requirements for hydrogen transmission pipelines are
natural gas). Therefore, most technological requirements for hydrogen transmission pipelines are
identical to those of natural gas pipelines, with certain modifications regarding safety,
identical to those ofand
infrastructure, natural gas pipelines,
materials. with certain
These conditions must bemodifications
met before theregarding
transmissionsafety, infrastructure,
of hydrogen is
and materials. These conditions must be met before the transmission of
initiated through a pipeline network. Hydrogen has its specific set of physical and chemicalhydrogen is initiated through
a pipeline network.
properties whichHydrogen
makes thehas its specific
pipeline set of physical
transmission andsignificantly
of this gas chemical properties
different which
from thatmakes
of the
pipeline transmission
natural gas. Due of to this gas significantly
physicochemical different
properties, from thatpipeline
hydrogen of natural gas. Due to
transmission is physicochemical
much more
difficult
properties, than natural
hydrogen gas. Even
pipeline compressed
transmission is hydrogen
much more candifficult
providethan
only natural
about a third of thecompressed
gas. Even energy
when compared to methane per unit of volume [21].
hydrogen can provide only about a third of the energy when compared to methane per unit of
volume [21].Natural gas transport and distribution networks are very well developed; therefore, the
hydrogen pipeline system is directly compared to the natural gas transmission system [22]. The
Natural gas transport and distribution networks are very well developed; therefore, the hydrogen
natural gas system consists of gas compression stations, pipelines, gas stations and gas storage
pipeline system is directly compared to the natural gas transmission system [22]. The natural gas
facilities, including caverns [23]. The gas compression station provides the energy needed to
system consists
generate gasofflow
gas atcompression
a given rate stations, pipelines,
and pressure. In the gas
casestations
of naturaland gas
gas, storage
gas facilities,
networks including
are divided
caverns
into[23].
highThe gas compression
pressure station provides
transmission pipelines and medium the energy needed distribution
or low-pressure to generatepipelines.
gas flowIn atthe
a given
rate and
casepressure.
of hydrogen In the case of natural
transmission, gas, gas networks
the distribution to smaller are divided
receiving into worldwide
centers high pressure transmission
is quite rare,
pipelines and medium
excepting or low-pressure
some locations, distribution
such as the Leuna industrialpipelines.
district inIn the caseIn
Germany. ofmost
hydrogen transmission,
cases, hydrogen
transportation is considered as a transmission from point A to point B, for
the distribution to smaller receiving centers worldwide is quite rare, excepting some locations, a technologically justified
such as
purpose. Selected issues related to hydrogen pipeline transmission have
the Leuna industrial district in Germany. In most cases, hydrogen transportation is considered been presented recently in a as a
number of
transmission papers
from point[24–29].
A to point B, for a technologically justified purpose. Selected issues related to
hydrogen pipeline transmission have been presented recently in a number of papers [24–29].
3. Model Development
3. Model Development
3.1. Basic Assumptions
3.1. Basic The
Assumptions
hydraulic analysis of hydrogen transmission through the pipelines was based on a number
of technological assumptions (e.g., mass flow rate from 0.3 to 3.0 kg/s, which corresponds to volume
The
flowhydraulic analysis
rate from 12,000 Nmof hydrogen
3/h to 120,000transmission through the pipelines
Nm3/h). The recommended was based
outlet pressure for an on a number of
exemplary
technological assumptions
technological installation(e.g.,
was mass flowtorate
assumed be from
24 bar0.3 to In
(g). 3.0the
kg/s, which exemplary
presented corresponds to the
case, volume
flow rate from 12,000 Nm 3 /h to 120,000 Nm3 /h). The recommended outlet pressure for an exemplary
medium inlet temperature was set at 5 °C and the ambient temperature was 15 °C. For heat flow
technological installation was assumed to be 24 bar (g). In the presented exemplary case, the medium
inlet temperature was set at 5 ◦ C and the ambient temperature was 15 ◦ C. For heat flow analysis,
the pipeline was located one meter deep. The length of the exemplary pipeline chosen for analysis was
100 km.
Energies 2019, 12, 569 4 of 21
The Colebrook-White Equation (1) was systematically analyzed from a theoretical and
experimental point of view and, as a result, considered to be the most accurate of all relationships
determining λ coefficient in the transient flow zone. For the zone with a full roughness impact λ = f (ε),
the linear friction coefficient is analyzed with the Prandtl-Nikuradse Equation (2) [31]:
1 ε
√ = −2lg (2)
λ 3.71
L(exp(s) − 1)
Le = (5)
s
where s—dimensionless parameter which determines the influence of terrain elevation,
which depends on temperature (T), compressibility factor (Z), relative density (d) and elevation
level difference (∆h). Dimensionless parameter which describes the terrain elevation impact is defined
as:
∆h
s = 0.0684d (6)
T·Z
If a pipeline of length L is divided into a number of sections (i.e., L1 , L2 , L3 , etc.) in which the
terrain level significantly changes, then the parameter j should be introduced in such a way that the
impact of the terrain elevation could be determined for each segment of the pipeline.
Energies 2019, 12, 569 5 of 21
exp(s) − 1
j= (7)
s
In this case, the pipeline equivalent length Le accounts for the effect of the terrain elevation for
each pipeline section with the dependence:
∂T
Q = −2πr · L · k (12)
∂r
After integration of Equation (12), we have
2πr · L · k · ( Tn − Tn+1 )
Q= (13)
r
ln nr+n 1
The most important parameter which determines the ability of a particular cylindrical obstacle to
heat transfer is the heat transfer coefficient (U). Taking into account convection and conductivity effects
for a pipeline with complex parameters, the heat transfer coefficient equals [34,35]
1
U= (14)
1 rin rout rin riso rin 2z x rin
αin + kp ln rin + k iso ln rout + k ground ln riso + z x αout
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 6
40,000 Nm 3
Nm3/h, /h, 120,000 3
120,000 NmNm /h). Obtained
3/h). Obtained results
results are arefor
similar similar forand
methane methane
hydrogenandforhydrogen for assumed
assumed volume
flow rates.
volume flow rates.
ambient air
Tout = Tamb
ground
Zx
Tin
Figure
Figure 2. 2. Crosssection
Cross section of
of an
anexemplary
exemplarypipeline.
pipeline.
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 7
2
Methane 12000 Nm³/h
Overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2K)
1.6
1.4
1.2
100 150 200 250 300
Pipeline inner diameter, mm
Figure 3. OverallFigure
heat3. transfer
Overall heatcoefficient
transfer coefficient
as as a function of of
a function pipeline inner diameter
pipeline innerfor different flow
diameter for different flow
rates of pure methane and pure hydrogen.
rates of pure methane and pure hydrogen.
The final equation for total heat flux has the following form:
2πrin L(Tin − Tout )
Q=
1 rin rout rin riso rin 2z r (16)
+ ln + ln + ln x + in
α in k p rin kiso rout k ground riso z xα out
The final equation for total heat flux has the following form:
where A and B are dimensionless parameters of equation of state, depending on the present temperature
and pressure conditions:
am p
A= 2 2 (19a)
R T
bm p
B= (19b)
RT
The compressibility factor is a key parameter while determining the pressure drop in the pipeline,
and changes in most of the thermodynamic parameters of the analyzed gas as well as changes in
temperature is a function of the pipeline length. Another important parameter is the density of the
transmitted gas, which is determined with the general form of the equation of state:
p
ρ= (20)
ZRT
Equation (10) also makes use of specific heat capacity at a constant pressure (Cp) and the
Joule–Thomson coefficient (µJT ), which have a significant impact on temperature changes of the
transmitted hydrogen [37,38]:
T dam − am
Cp = Cpid + Cpr = Cpid + R · T ∂T + Z − 1 + dT
∂Z √ ·
p 2 2bm
√ √ 2a √ (21)
d
( ∂T ) p +(1+ 2)( ∂T ) p ( ∂T ) p −( 2−1)( ∂T ) p
∂Z
T m
∂B ∂Z ∂B
√ − √ + √dT2 · ln Z+(1+√2) B
Z +(1+ 2) B Z −( 2−1) B 2 2bm Z +(1− 2) B
where Cpid —isobaric heat capacity for ideal gas, Cpr —residual part of isobaric heat capacity.
The Joule–Thomson coefficient can be expressed with specific heat capacity at constant pressure:
" #
1 ∂v
µ JT = T −v (22)
Cp ∂T p
Energies 2019, 12, 569 8 of 21
Using the real gas Law (18), Equation (22) can be written as
" #
1 T ∂Z
µ JT = (23)
Cp Z · ρ ∂T p
where
6BZ + 2Z − 3B2 − 2B + A − Z2
∂A
∂T (B − Z) + ∂B
∂T
∂Z p p
= (24)
∂T p 3Z2 + 2( B − 1)2 + ( A − 2B − 3B2 )
In the case of hydrogen, the description of the Joule–Thomson effect has a special meaning. Unlike
for natural gas, the Joule–Thomson coefficient for hydrogen is negative, which means that hydrogen
temperature increases with isenthalpic expansion.
Calculations were performed for pure hydrogen (Figure 4) and methane/hydrogen mixtures with
a maximum hydrogen content of 15% mol (Figure 5).
It should be noted that from the perspective of mass flow rate, the recommended diameters for
the pure hydrogen are much smaller than for methane/hydrogen mixtures, which results from the low
mass of hydrogen (Figures 4 and 5).
The recommended diameters for the methane/hydrogen mixture are much larger, as the density of
pure hydrogen under normal conditions equals 0.0898 kg/m3 , while the density of a mixture of
methane and 15% hydrogen is 0.6223 kg/m3 .
Recommended pipeline diameters for the assumed flow rates of pure hydrogen and
methane/(15%)hydrogen mixtures are presented in Table 1. Evidently, transmission of the same
volume of methane in a mixture with 15% hydrogen content required much larger diameters.
Table 1. Recommended pipeline diameters for pure hydrogen and methane/hydrogen mixture transmission.
450
0.3 kg/s (12000 Nm³/h)
400
1.0 kg/s (40000 Nm³/h)
Calculated diameter, mm
350 2.0 kg/s (80000 Nm³/h)
300 3.0 kg/s (120000 Nm³/h)
250
200
150
100
50
0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Pipeline inlet pressure, MPa
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 10
Figure Diameter
4.Figure calculation
4. Diameter for for
calculation pure hydrogen
pure pipelineasas
hydrogen pipeline a function
a function of pipeline
of pipeline inlet pressure.
inlet pressure.
700
2.08 kg/s (12000 Nm³/h)
600 6.93 kg/s (40000 Nm³/h)
13.86 kg/s (80000 Nm³/h)
Calculated diameter, mm
400
300
200
100
0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Pipeline inlet pressure, MPa
4. Calculation
4. Calculation ResultsResults
Flow modeling in a hydrogen transmission pipeline covers the analysis of changes in pressure
Flow and
modeling in a as
temperature hydrogen
a functiontransmission pipeline
of length of the pipeline.covers the analysis
The changes of changes
of compressibility in pressure
factor,
and temperature
density, as a function
specific of length
heat, and of the pipeline.
the Joule–Thomson effectThe
as changes
parameters of especially
compressibility
importantfactor,
for density,
hydrogen
specific heat, and thepipeline transmission were
Joule–Thomson presented
effect for one of especially
as parameters the variants. important
A comparative foranalysis was pipeline
hydrogen
also performed for the methane/hydrogen mixture and mass flow rate of 40,000 Nm3/h.
transmission were presented for one of the variants. A comparative analysis was also performed for
the methane/hydrogen 3
4.1. Pressure Dropmixture and mass flow rate of 40,000 Nm /h.
The profiles of pressure and temperature changes for recommended pipeline diameters,
4.1. Pressure Drop
assumed mass flow rates of 0.3, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 kg/s, (volume flow rates: 12,000 Nm /h, 40,000 Nm /h,
3 3
80,000 Nm
The profiles /h and 120,000
of 3pressure andNm 3/h) and hydrogen inlet temperature of 5 °C are presented in Figures
temperature changes for recommended pipeline diameters, assumed
6–9. Results of modelling the pressure drop profiles confirmed the preliminary calculations of the
mass flow rates of 0.3, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 kg/s, (volume flow rates: 12,000 Nm3 /h, 40,000 Nm3 /h,
pipeline diameter. For the smallest recommended diameters for a selected flow rate, the inlet
80,000 Nm3pressure
/h andin120,000 Nmwas3 /h) and hydrogen inlet temperature of 5 ◦ C are presented in Figures 6–9.
the pipeline from 6.01 to 6.76 MPa (Figures 6–9), while for the largest recommended
Results of modelling
diameters thetheinletpressure drop profiles
pressure ranged from 2.91confirmed the preliminary
to 3.2 MPa (Figures calculations
6–9). The analysis of the pipeline
of temperature
changes
diameter. For the revealed
smallest that the transmitted hydrogen
recommended diameters warms
for aupselected
more slowly
flow forrate,
smaller
thediameters and
inlet pressure in the
higher flow rates.
pipeline was from 6.01 to 6.76 MPa (Figures 6–9), while for the largest recommended diameters the
inlet pressure ranged from 2.91 to 3.2 MPa (Figures 6–9). The analysis of temperature changes revealed
that the transmitted hydrogen warms up more slowly for smaller diameters and higher flow rates.
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 11
6 p, D=100mm 14
6.5 16
p, D=125mm
5.5 p, D=150mm
6 p, D=100mm 12
14
p, D=200mm
p, D=125mm
5 T, D=100mm
5.5 p, D=150mm
MPa(g)MPa(g)
T, D=125mm 10
°C
12
p, D=200mm
4.5 T, D=150mm
Temperature,
5 T, D=100mm
T, D=200mm 810
T, D=125mm
°C
Pressure,
4
4.5 T, D=150mm
Temperature,
T, D=200mm 68
3.5
Pressure,
4
46
3
3.5
2.5 24
3
2 02
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
2 Pipeline length, km 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Figure 6. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
Figure
mass 6. Pressure
flow rate of 0.3(p) (continuous
kg/s lines)
(12,000 Nm anddifferent
3/h) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
diameters.
mass flow rate of 0.3 kg/s (12,000 Nm3 /h) and different diameters.
Figure 6. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
7 of 0.3 kg/s (12,000 Nm3/h) and different diameters.
mass flow rate 16
6.5
7 16
p, D=150mm 14
6
6.5 p, D=200mm
5.5 p, D=250mm
p, D=150mm 14
6 T, D=150mm 12
MPa(g)MPa(g)
p, D=200mm
°C
5 T, D=200mm
5.5 p, D=250mm
Temperature,
T, D=250mm 12
4.5 T, D=150mm 10
°C
Pressure,
5 T, D=200mm
Temperature,
4 T, D=250mm
4.5 10
Pressure,
8
3.5
4
3 8
3.5 6
2.5
3
6
2 4
2.5 0 20 40 60 80 100
2 Pipeline length, km 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
Figure 7. Pressure
mass flow (p)kg/s
rate of 1.0 (continuous lines)
(40,000 Nm Pipeline
and
3 /h) length,
for temperature
different km
(T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
diameters.
mass flow rate of 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm /h) for different diameters.
3
Figure 7. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
mass flow rate of 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm3/h) for different diameters.
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 12
6.5
7 16
14
6.56
p, D=200mm 14
5.5
6 p, D=250mm
D=300mm 12
MPa(g)
p,p,D=200mm
°C °C
5.55 p,T,D=250mm
D=200mm
Temperature,
D=250mm 12
MPa(g)
p,T,D=300mm
4.5
5 D=300mm 10
T,T,D=200mm
Pressure,
Temperature,
T, D=250mm
4.54 T, D=300mm 10
Pressure,
8
3.5
4
8
3.53
6
2.5
3
6
2.52 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
2 4
0 20 Pipeline
40 length,
60 km 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Figure 8. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
Figureflow
mass rate of 2.0
8. Pressure (p)kg/s (80,000 Nm
(continuous 3/h) for different diameters.
lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
Figure 8. Pressure (p) (continuous lines)3 and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
mass flow rate of 2.0 kg/s (80,000 Nm /h) for different diameters.
mass flow rate of 2.0 kg/s (80,000 Nm3/h) for different diameters.
6 16
6
5.5 16
14
5.55
p, D=250mm 14
MPa(g)
p, D=300mm
°C °C
5 12
4.5 p,p,D=250mm
D=400mm
p,T,D=300mm
D=250mm Temperature,
MPa(g)
p,T,D=400mm
D=300mm 12
Pressure,
4.54
T,T,D=250mm
D=400mm
Temperature,
10
T, D=300mm
Pressure,
4 T, D=400mm 10
3.5
8
3.53
8
3 6
2.5
6
2.52 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
2 4
Pipeline length, km
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 9. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) Pipeline length, km(T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
and temperature
Figure 9. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) 3 and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
mass flow rate of 3.0 kg/s (120,000 Nm /h) for different diameters.
mass flow rate of 3.0 kg/s (120,000 Nm3/h) for different diameters.
Figure 9. Pressure
4.2. Thermodynamic (p) (continuous
Parameters lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
Analysis
mass flow rate of 3.0 kg/s (120,000 Nm
4.2. Thermodynamic Parameters Analysis /h) for different diameters.
3
The analysis of selected thermodynamic parameters, such as density, flow rate, compressibility
factor,
4.2. The analysis
isobaric heatof
Thermodynamic selectedand
capacity
Parameters thermodynamic
Joule–Thomson
Analysis parameters, such as
coefficient were density,for
presented flow rate, compressibility
hydrogen transmission
factor, isobaric heat 3
capacity and Joule–Thomson coefficient were presented for
at a flow rate of 40,000 Nm /h (1.0 kg/s). Figure 10 illustrates the changes in hydrogen density hydrogen
and its
The analysis of selected thermodynamic parameters, such as density, flow rate, compressibility
flow rate as a function of pipeline length for selected pipeline diameters.
factor, isobaric heat capacity and Joule–Thomson coefficient were presented for hydrogen
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 13
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 13
transmission at a flow rate of 40,000 Nm 3/h (1.0 kg/s). Figure 10 illustrates the changes in hydrogen
transmission
Energies 2019,
at
12,
a flow rate of 40,000 Nm3/h (1.0 kg/s). Figure 10 illustrates the changes in hydrogen
569 12 of 21
density and its flow rate as a function of pipeline length for selected pipeline diameters.
density and its flow rate as a function of pipeline length for selected pipeline diameters.
6 30
6 ρ, D=150mm 30
ρ, D=150mm
ρ, D=200mm
5.5 ρ, D=200mm
5.5 ρ, D=250mm
ρ, D=250mm 25
w, D=150mm 25
5 w, D=150mm
5 w, D=200mm
w, D=200mm
4.5
Density, kg/m
4.5 20
20
4
4
15
3.5 15
3.5
3
3 10
10
2.5
2.5
2 5
2 5
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Pipeline length, km
Figure 10. Density (ρ) (continuous lines) and flow velocity (w) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
Figure 10. Density (ρ) (continuous lines) and flow velocity (w) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
3 /h).
mass flow
Figure rate 1.0 kg/s
10. Density (40,000 Nmlines)
(ρ) (continuous and flow velocity (w) (dashed lines) changes for hydrogen
mass flow rate 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm 3/h).
mass flow rate 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm /h).
3
1.035
1.035
1.03
1.03
1.025
1.025
1.02
1.02
1.015
1.015
1.01
1.01
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Pipeline length, km
Figure 11. Compressibility factor changes for hydrogen mass flow rate 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm3 /h).
Figure 11. Compressibility factor changes for hydrogen mass flow rate 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm3/h).
Figure 11. Compressibility factor changes for hydrogen mass flow rate 1.0 kg/s (40,000 Nm3/h).
14.44 -0.27
Cp, D=150mm
14.36 -0.295
-0.3
14.34
-0.305
14.32
-0.31
14.3 -0.315
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Figure 12.12.Isobaric
Figure heatcapacity
Isobaric heat capacity
(Cp)(Cp) (continuous
(continuous lines)
lines) and and Joule–Thomson
Joule–Thomson coefficient
coefficient (μ JT) (dashed
(µJT )
(dashed
lines)lines) changes
changes for hydrogen
for hydrogen mass
mass flow rateflow rate(40,000
1.0 kg/s 1.0 kg/sNm(40,000
3/h). Nm3 /h).
4.3. 4.3.
Methane-Hydrogen Mixtures
Methane-Hydrogen Mixtures
Hydrogen
Hydrogen cancanalso
alsobebetransmitted
transmitted through naturalgas
through natural gaspipelines
pipelines as as
an an additive
additive to natural
to natural gas. gas.
ThisThis
is one of the alternative methods of hydrogen transportation. Numerous
is one of the alternative methods of hydrogen transportation. Numerous analyses and studies analyses and studies
devoted to this
devoted to issue
this have
issuebeenhave performed recently [21,29,40].
been performed Hydrogen has
recently [21,29,40]. differenthas
Hydrogen thermodynamic
different
parameters compared
thermodynamic to methane,
parameters whichtoismethane,
compared the mainwhich
component of natural
is the main gas. This
component causes
of natural significant
gas. This
causes
changes insignificant changes inof
the flow conditions the flow conditions
natural of natural
gas that contains gas that contains
hydrogen. hydrogen.
Industrial practice Industrial
and scientific
practice and
publications scientific
indicate that publications
the maximum indicate that the
admissible maximum
molar fractionadmissible
of hydrogen molar
in afraction
mixtureofwith
hydrogen in a mixture with natural gas should not exceed 15%. The maximum
natural gas should not exceed 15%. The maximum hydrogen content in the natural gas transmission hydrogen content in
the natural gas transmission system suggested in the United States should be in the range of
system suggested in the United States should be in the range of 5%–15%. Several European countries
5%–15%. Several European countries have introduced limits on the content of hydrogen in natural
have introduced limits on the content of hydrogen in natural gas pipeline systems from 0.1% to
gas pipeline systems from 0.1% to 12% by volume. The maximum hydrogen content usually
12% by volume. The maximum hydrogen content usually depends on the technical conditions for a
depends on the technical conditions for a given pipeline [41]. Hydrogen significantly influences
given pipeline
natural [41]. Hydrogen
gas transmission significantly
conditions. influences
The basic natural
advantage gas transmission
is lowering conditions.
the pressure The basic
drop of natural
advantage
gas transmitted with a hydrogen admixture, and possibility to transmit natural gas across longer and
is lowering the pressure drop of natural gas transmitted with a hydrogen admixture,
possibility
distancesto transmit natural gasgas
without additional across longer distances
compression stations.without additional
Unfortunately, the gas compression
hydrogen contentstations.
in
Unfortunately, the hydrogen
natural gas significantly content inthe
deteriorates natural
energygas significantly
parameters deteriorates
and calorific valuethe energygas.
of natural parameters
The
andchanges
calorificinvalue
higher of heating
natural value
gas. The changes
(HHV) in higher
and lower heating
heating value value
(LHV),(HHV) and
calorific lower
value of heating
the
mixture, and Wobbe index as a function of hydrogen content in the methane mixture
value (LHV), calorific value of the mixture, and Wobbe index as a function of hydrogen content in the are presented
in Figure
methane 13. are presented in Figure 13.
mixture
Energies
Energies 2019,
2019, 12
12,FOR
569 PEER REVIEW 14 of 15
21
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 15
55
55
50
50
45
45
40
40
MJ/Nm3
35
MJ/Nm3
35
30
30
25 HHV
25 HHV
20 LHV
20 LHV
Wobbe H
15 Wobbe H
15 Wobbe L
10 Wobbe L
100 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Molar fraction of hydrogen in mixture with methane
Molar fraction of hydrogen in mixture with methane
Figure 13. Changes of higher
Figure higher heating
heating value
value(HHV),
(HHV),lower
lowerheating
heatingvalue
value(LHV)
(LHV)and
andWobbe
Wobbeindexes as
indexes
Figure 13. Changes of higher heating value (HHV), lower heating value (LHV) and Wobbe indexes
a function of hydrogen molar fraction in mixture with methane.
as a function of hydrogen molar fraction in mixture with methane.
as a function of hydrogen molar fraction in mixture with methane.
The pressure
The pressure and
and temperature
temperature changes
changes as as aa function
function ofof pipeline
pipeline length
length for
for aa mixture
mixture of
of methane
methane
and 15%The pressure
15% hydrogen and temperature
hydrogen transmitted
transmitted at changes
at aa flow
flow rate as a function of
3 pipeline length for a mixture of methane
and rate of
of 40,000
40,000 Nm
Nm3/h /hare
arepresented
presentedinin Figure
Figure 14
14 for
for three
three
and 15%
recommendedhydrogen
pipelinetransmitted
diameters.at a
The flow rate
change inof 40,000 Nm
thermodynamic
3/h are presented in Figure 14 for three
parameters was also analyzed as aa
recommended pipeline diameters. The change in thermodynamic parameters was also analyzed as
recommended
function of molarpipeline
fraction diameters.
of hydrogenTheinchange
the in thermodynamic
mixture for a 250 mm parameters
diameter. was also analyzed as a
function of molar fraction of hydrogen in the mixture for a 250 mm diameter.
function of molar fraction of hydrogen in the mixture for a 250 mm diameter.
5 16
5 16
4.5 14
4.5 14
p, D=250mm
p,p,D=300mm
D=250mm
p,p,D=400mm
D=300mm 12
Pressure, MPa(g)
4
Temperature, °C
Pressure, MPa(g)
4 D=400mm 12
T,p,D=250mm
Temperature, °C
T, D=250mm
T, D=300mm
3.5 T,T,D=400mm
D=300mm 10
3.5 T, D=400mm 10
3 8
3 8
2.5 6
2.5 6
2 4
20 20 40 60 80 100 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Pipeline length, km
Figure 14. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T) (dashed lines) changes for methane–15%
Figure
hydrogen14.mixture
Pressure
mass(p)flow
(continuous
rate of 6.93 lines) Nm3 /h) for different
and temperature
kg/s (40,000 (T) (dashed lines) changes for
diameters.
Figure 14. Pressure (p) (continuous lines) and temperature (T)3 (dashed lines) changes for
methane–15% hydrogen mixture mass flow rate of 6.93 kg/s (40,000 Nm /h) for different diameters.
methane–15% hydrogen mixture mass flow rate of 6.93 kg/s (40,000 Nm3/h) for different diameters.
This analysis of the hydrogen molar fraction in the hydrogen/methane mixture confirms the
This analysis of the hydrogen molar fraction in the hydrogen/methane mixture confirms the
effect of pressure drop in the analyzed pipeline. The required inlet pipeline pressure, for a 15%
effect of pressure drop in the analyzed pipeline. The required inlet pipeline pressure, for a 15%
Energies 2019, 12, 569 15 of 21
Energies 2019,analysis
This 12 FOR PEER REVIEW
of the hydrogen molar fraction in the hydrogen/methane mixture confirms the 16
effect of pressure drop in the analyzed pipeline. The required inlet pipeline pressure, for a 15%
hydrogen
hydrogen content
contentin in the
the gas
gas mixture,
mixture, is is approximately
approximately 10% 10% lower
lower when
when compared
compared to to pure
pure methane
methane
(Figure
(Figure 15). An increase in hydrogen molar content caused the temperature of the analyzed
15). An increase in hydrogen molar content caused the temperature of the analyzed gas gas
mixture
mixture to to more
more rapidly
rapidly approach
approach the the ambient
ambient temperature.
temperature. On On the
the other
other hand,
hand, thethe Joule–Thomson
Joule–Thomson
effect
effect for
for methane
methane caused caused slight
slight cooling
cooling of of the
the analyzed
analyzedmixtures,
mixtures,and andforfor pure
pure hydrogen
hydrogen this this effect
effect
did not take place.
did not take place.
The
The variability
variability of of analyzed
analyzed thermodynamic
thermodynamic parameters
parameters of of aa methane/hydrogen
methane/hydrogen mixture mixtureas as aa
function of hydrogen molar fraction is shown in Figures 16–18. The
function of hydrogen molar fraction is shown in Figures 16–18. The analyzed mixtures contained analyzed mixtures contained a
maximum 15% of hydrogen; studies and practice have shown that
a maximum 15% of hydrogen; studies and practice have shown that this amount of hydrogen in this amount of hydrogen in the
methane
the methane or natural
or natural gasgas
mixture
mixture does
doesnotnotsignificantly
significantly affect
affectthethetransmission
transmissionparameters
parametersof of the
the
pipeline.
pipeline. However, it should be noted that a change in density is important: it can be altered by up
However, it should be noted that a change in density is important: it can be altered by uptoto
20%
20% for
for aa15%15%content
contentofofhydrogen
hydrogenininthe themixture
mixturewhen whencompared
comparedtotopure puremethane.
methane.Apart Apartfrom
from a
considerable
a considerable lowering
lowering of of
density,
density,the theJoule–Thomson
Joule–Thomsoneffect effectisisalso
alsolowered
loweredwith withan an increase
increase in in
hydrogen
hydrogen content. With increased hydrogen content, its specific heat also increases for a unit of
content. With increased hydrogen content, its specific heat also increases for a unit ofmass
mass
due
due to
to the
the high
highcalorific
calorific value
value ofof hydrogen
hydrogen per per unit
unit of
of mass.
mass. The
Thecompressibility
compressibility factor factor has
has been
been also
also
observed
observed to grow significantly. The addition of hydrogen improves to some extent the natural gas
to grow significantly. The addition of hydrogen improves to some extent the natural gas
transmission conditions by
transmission conditions bypressure
pressuredrop drop reduction
reduction in the
in the pipeline.
pipeline. However,
However, hydrogen
hydrogen contentcontent
above
above
15%–20% 15%–20%
in the in gasthe gas mixture
mixture significantly
significantly influences influences the calorific
the calorific value ofvalue
naturalof natural
gas. The gas. The
change
change
in thermodynamic conditions with an increased hydrogen content may also affect the natural the
in thermodynamic conditions with an increased hydrogen content may also affect gas
natural gas transmission system (i.e., gas compression stations or gas reduction
transmission system (i.e., gas compression stations or gas reduction stations). Another important issue stations). Another
important
is selectionissueof the is selection
material of the material
for pipeline constructionfor pipeline
in light ofconstruction
the hydrogenincorrosionlight of case
the [42],
hydrogen
which
corrosion case [42], which affects
affects the cost of its construction [20,43]. the cost of its construction [20,43].
5.5 16
5 14
12
4.5
Pressure, MPa(g)
Temperature, °C
10
4
8
3.5
6
3
4
p, Pure CH4 p, 5% of H2
2.5 p, 10% of H2 p, 15% of H2 2
T, Pure CH4 T, 5% of H2
T, 10% of H2 T, 15% of H2
2 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Figure 15. Pressure (p) (continuous line) and temperature (T) (dashed line) changes as a function of
Figure 15. content
hydrogen Pressurein(p) (continuous
mixture line) andand
with methane temperature (T) (dashed line) changes as a function of
pipeline length.
hydrogen content in mixture with methane and pipeline length.
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 17
Energies 2019, 12, 569 16 of 21
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 17
40 10
40 10
35 9
35 9
30 8
m/sm/s
30 8
3 3
kg/m
velocity,
25 7
kg/m
velocity,
25 7
Density,
20 6
Density,
Flow
20 6
Flow
15 5
15 ρ, Pure CH4 ρ, 5% of H2 5
10 ρ, Pure
10% CH4
of H2 ρ, 15%
5% ofofH2
H2 4
10 w, Pureof
ρ, 10% CH4H2 w, 5% of
ρ, 15% ofH2
H2 4
w, Pure
10% CH4
of H2 w, 15%
5% ofofH2
H2
5 3
w, 10% of H2 w, 15% of H2
5 0 20 40 60 80 100 3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pipeline length, km
Pipeline length, km
Figure 16. Density (ρ) (continuous lines) and flow velocity (w) (dashed lines) changes as a function of
Figure 16. Density (ρ) (continuous lines) and flow velocity (w) (dashed lines) changes as a function of
hydrogen
Figure 16. content
Densityand pipeline length.
(ρ) (continuous lines) and flow velocity (w) (dashed lines) changes as a function of
hydrogen content and pipeline length.
hydrogen content and pipeline length.
2.8 5
2.8 5
2.75
2.75
K/MPa
2.7 4.5
kJ/(kgK)
K/MPa
2.7 4.5
kJ/(kgK)
2.65
2.65
2.6 4 coefficient,
coefficient,
capacity,
2.6 4
capacity,
2.55
2.55
Joule-Thomson
2.5 3.5
heatheat
Joule-Thomson
2.5 3.5
2.45
Isobaric
2.45
Isobaric
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
Compressibility factor
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
standards), even though the upper Wobbe index remains within accepted norms.
Energies 2019, 12, 569 18 of 21
6. Conclusions
The main objective of this paper was to analyze the possibilities of pipeline transmission of
hydrogen and methane/hydrogen mixtures. This analysis has been performed to determine the
impact of hydrogen content on the conditions of natural gas transmission, the main component of
which is methane. It should be emphasized that hydrogen will play an increasingly important role as
an energy carrier in the global economy, particularly for energy storage. The economic environment
for the use of hydrogen should be favorable in the coming years. A steady increase of renewable
energy content in the total energy balance in all regions of the world, and the growing irregularities
in power generation and usage, will have an important role in the field of hydrogen utilization.
Hydrogen pipeline transmission is the most effective method for transporting significant amounts of
hydrogen over long distances, in particular for its storage, when the appropriate storage site for
hydrogen is located at a considerable distance from the source of its generation due to geological
conditions (suitable locations for salt cavern). In addition, technological and technical issues related to
pipeline transmission of natural gas with an increased hydrogen content should be considered, where
a significant change in thermodynamic parameters may also affect the operational conditions of
installations associated with the transmission system. An additional problem is the impact of the
increased molar fraction of hydrogen on the pipe material.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.W. and M.Ł.; formal analysis, T.W.; funding acquisition, M.Ł. and
A.S.; investigation, T.W. and S.K.; methodology, T.W.; supervision, M.Ł. and A.S.; validation, T.W. and A.O.;
visualization, T.W.; writing—original draft, T.W.; writing—review and editing, S.K. and T.W.
Funding: This work received funding from the Statutory Research of Natural Gas Department at Drilling Oil &
Gas Faculty, no. 11.11.190.555.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
am Peng Robinson EOS parameter, N·m4 /mol2
bm Peng Robinson EOS parameter (co-volume), m3 /mol
A, B Dimensionless Peng Robinson EOS parameters
Cp Isobaric heat capacity, J/(kg·K) or J/(mol·K)
Cpid Ideal gas isobaric heat capacity, J/(kg·K) or J/(mol·K)
Cpr Real gas (residual) isobaric heat capacity, J/(kg·K) or J/(mol·K)
d Relative density of gas
D Pipeline inner diameter, m
g Gravity constant, m/s2
∆h Elevation level difference, m
k Thermal conductivity, W/(m·K)
L Pipeline segment length, m
Le Equivalent pipeline segment length, m
•
M Mass flow rate, kg/s
P Pressure, Pa
p1 Pipeline inlet pressure, Pa
p2 Pipeline outlet pressure, Pa
pav Pipeline average pressure, Pa
pb Base pressure, Pa
Qn Volume flow rate under normal conditions, Nm3 /s
R Pipeline inner radius, m
R Gas constant, J/(mol·K)
Re Reynolds number
Energies 2019, 12, 569 19 of 21
T Fluid temperature, K
Tb Base temperature, K
Tin Temperature in pipeline, K
Tout Ambient temperature, K
U Overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 ·K)
V Molar volume, m3 /mol
Z Compressibility factor,
zx Depth of pipeline burial, m
A Convective heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 ·K)
E Relative pipeline roughness
Λ Linear friction factor
µJT Joule–Thomson coefficient, K/Pa
P Fluid density, kg/m3
Abbreviations
RES Renewable energy sources
HHV Higher heating value
LHV Lower heating value
J–T Joule–Thomson
References
1. Kharel, S.; Shabani, B. Hydrogen as a long-term large-scale energy storage solution to support renewables.
Energies 2018, 11, 2825. [CrossRef]
2. Wind EUROPE 2017, Wind in Power. 2016 European statistics. Available online: http://windeurope.org
(accessed on 20 December 2017).
3. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2017; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2017.
4. Kuczyński, S.; Łaciak, M.; Oliinyk, A.; Szurlej, A.; Włodek, T. Thermodynamic and technical issues of
hydrogen and methane-hydrogen mixtures high-pressure pipeline transmission. In Proceedings of the 1st
Latin American Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy Water and Environmental Systems-LA
SDEWES, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 28–31 January 2018.
5. Fu, Z.; Lu, K.; Zhu, Y. Thermal system analysis and optimization of large-scale compressed air energy storage
(CAES). Energies 2015, 8, 8873–8886. [CrossRef]
6. Abbaspour, M.; Satkin, M.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Lotfi, F.H.; Noorollahi, Y. Optimal operation
scheduling of wind power integrated with compressed air energy storage (CAES). Renew. Energy 2013, 51,
53–59. [CrossRef]
7. Blew, W.; Foltynowicz, M.; Kowalczyk, A. Projekt HESTOR. Innowacyjne metody magazynowania i
wykorzystania energii z OZE. Pol. Chem. 2016, 2, 10–14.
8. Hosseini, S.F.; Wahid, M.A. Hydrogen production from renewable and sustainable energy resources:
Promising green energy carrier for clean development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 850–866.
[CrossRef]
9. Union, E. Directive 2009/28/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 23 April 2009 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, OJL 140, 16–62.
10. Blacharski, T.; Kogut, K.; Szurlej, A. The perspectives for the use of hydrogen for electricity storage
considering the foreign experience. E3S Web of Conf. 2017, 14, 1–10. [CrossRef]
11. Ball, M.; Basile, A.; Veziroglu, T.N. Compendium of Hydrogen Energy: Hydrogen Use, Safety and the Hydrogen
Economy; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2015.
12. Włodek, T.; Kuczyński, S.; Łaciak, M.; Szurlej, A. Possibilities and Selected Aspects of Hydrogen Energy
Storage. 2nd World Congress on Petroleum and Refinery. J. Environ. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 48.
13. Simon, J.; Ferriz, A.M.; Correas, L.C. HyUnder–hydrogen underground storage at large scale: Case study
Spain. Energy Procedia 2015, 73, 136–144. [CrossRef]
14. Tarkowski, R. Perspectives of using the geological subsurface for hydrogen storage in Poland. Int. J. Hydrog.
Energy 2017, 42, 347–355. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 569 20 of 21
15. Ślizowski, J.; Smulski, R.; Nagy, S.; Burliga, S.; Polański, K. Tightness of hydrogen storage caverns in salt
deposits. AGH Drill. Oil Gas 2017, 34, 397–409. [CrossRef]
16. Lankof, L.; Polański, K.; Ślizowski, J.; Tomaszewska, B. Possibility of energy storage in salt caverns. AGH
Drill. Oil Gas 2016, 33, 405–415. [CrossRef]
17. Ślizowski, J.; Urbańczyk, K.; Łaciak, M.; Lankof, L.; Serbin, K. Efektywność magazynowania gazu ziemnego
i wodoru w kawernach solnych. Przemysł Chemiczny Chem. Ind. 2017, 96, 994–998.
18. Witkowski, A.; Rusin, A.; Majkut, M.; Stolecka, K. Comprehensive analysis of hydrogen compression and
pipeline transportation from thermodynamics and safety aspects. Energy 2017, 141, 2508–2518. [CrossRef]
19. Lins, P.; Almeida, A. Multidimensional risk analysis of hydrogen pipelines. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37,
13545–13554. [CrossRef]
20. Gupta, R.; Basile, A.; Veziroglu, T.N. Compendium of Hydrogen Energy: Hydrogen Storage, Distribution and
Infrastructure; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
21. Haeseldonckx, D.; D’haeseleer, W. The use of the natural-gas pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen transport
in a changing market structure. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2007, 32, 1381–1386. [CrossRef]
22. Blacharski, T.; Janusz, P.; Kaliski, M.; Zabrzeski, Ł. The effect of hydrogen transported through gas pipelines
on the performance of natural gas grid AGH Drill. Oil Gas 2016, 33, 515–529.
23. Serbin, K.; Ślizowski, J.; Urbańczyk, K.; Nagy, S. The influence of thermodynamic effects on gas storage
cavern convergence. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2015, 79, 166–171. [CrossRef]
24. De Vries, H.; Florisson, O.; Thiekstra, G.C. Safe operation of natural gas appliances fueled with
hydrogen/natural gas mixtures (progress obtained in the NaturalHy-project). In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, San Sebastian, Spain, 11–13 September 2007.
25. Wurm, J.; Pasteris, R.F. The transmission of gaseous hydrogen. In Proceedings of the Fall Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 30 September–3 October 1973; p. 4526.
26. Peet, Y.; Saguut, P.; Charron, Y. Pressure loss reduction in hydrogen pipeline by surface restructuring. Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 2009, 34, 8964–8973. [CrossRef]
27. Takahashi, K. Transportation of Hydrogen by pipeline. In Energy Carriers and Conversion Systems, 2nd ed.;
Ohta, T., Ed.; EOLSS: Paris, France, 2004.
28. Włodek, T.; Łaciak, M.; Kurowska, K.; W˛egrzyn, Ł. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen pipeline
transportation—Selected aspects. AGH Drill. Oil Gas 2016, 33, 379–396. [CrossRef]
29. Dodds, P.E.; Demoullin, S. Conversion of the UK gas system to transport hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
2013, 38, 7189–7200. [CrossRef]
30. Colebrook, C.F.; White, C.M. Experiments with fluid friction in roughened pipes. Proc. R. Soc. 1937, 161,
367–381.
31. Nagy, S. Vademecum Gazownika—Vademecum of the Gasifier; SITPNIG: Krakow, Poland, 2014; Volume 1.
32. Shashi Menon, E. Gas Pipeline Hydraulics; CRC PRESS: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005.
33. Duan, J.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Lin, B.; Gong, J. Calculation on inner wall temperature in oil-gas pipe
flow. J. Cent. South Univ. 2012, 19, 1932–1937. [CrossRef]
34. Incropera, F.P.; DeWitt, D.P. Introduction to Heat Transfer, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA,
1966.
35. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Pipelines and Risers; Elsevier: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
36. Peng, D.Y.; Robinson, D.B. A new two-constant equation of state. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1976, 15, 59–64.
[CrossRef]
37. Pratt, M.R. Thermodynamic properties involving derivatives: Using the Peng-Robinson equation of state.
Chem. Eng. Educ. 2001, 35, 112–115.
38. Tarom, N.; Hossain, M.M. A practical method for the evaluation of the Joule Thomson effects to predict
flowing temperature profile in gas producing wells. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 26, 1080–1090. [CrossRef]
39. Nagy, S.; Łaciak, M.; Włodek, T. Analiza możliwości bezpiecznego rurociagowego ˛ transportu wodoru.
Report from Work Package 7, Project GEKON-HESTOR. Unpublished work. 2016.
40. Bedel, L.; Junker, M. Natural gas pipelines for hydrogen transportation. In Proceedings of the WHEC
Conference Session, Lyon, France, 13–16 June 2006.
41. Odgen, J.; Myers Ja, A.; Scheitrum, D.; McDonald, Z.; Miller, M. Natural gas as a bridge to hydrogen
transportation fuel: Insights from the literature. Energy Policy 2018, 115, 317–329.
Energies 2019, 12, 569 21 of 21
42. Meng, B.; Gu, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, C.; Li, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, J.; Chen, X.; Han, Y. Hydrogen effects on X80
pipeline steel in high-pressure natural gas/hydrogen mixtures. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 7404–7412.
[CrossRef]
43. Fekete, J.R.; Sowards, J.W.; Amaro, R.L. Economic impact of applying high strength steels in hydrogen gas
pipelines. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2015, 40, 10547–10558. [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).