3.

Article

Hydrogen Gas Compression for

Efficient Storage: Balancing Energy
and Increasing Density

Alessandro Franco and Caterina Giovannini

Special Issue
Recent Advances in Hydrogen Technologies: Production, Storage and Utilization
Edited by
Dr. Rajender Boddula and Dr. Lakshmana Reddy Nagappagari

https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5020017
Article
Hydrogen Gas Compression for Efficient Storage: Balancing
Energy and Increasing Density
Alessandro Franco * and Caterina Giovannini

Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Constructions Engineering, University of Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino,
56126 Pisa, Italy; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This article analyzes the processes of compressing hydrogen in the gaseous state, an aspect
considered important due to its contribution to the greater diffusion of hydrogen in both the civil and
industrial sectors. This article begins by providing a concise overview and comparison of diverse
hydrogen-storage methodologies, laying the groundwork with an in-depth analysis of hydrogen’s
thermophysical properties. It scrutinizes plausible configurations for hydrogen compression, aiming
to strike a delicate balance between energy consumption, derived from the fuel itself, and the requisite
number of compression stages. Notably, to render hydrogen storage competitive in terms of volume,
pressures of at least 350 bar are deemed essential, albeit at an energy cost amounting to approximately
10% of the fuel’s calorific value. Multi-stage compression emerges as a crucial strategy, not solely
for energy efficiency, but also to curtail temperature rises, with an upper limit set at 200 ◦ C. This
nuanced approach is underlined by the exploration of compression levels commonly cited in the
literature, particularly 350 bar and 700 bar. The study advocates for a three-stage compression system
as a pragmatic compromise, capable of achieving high-pressure solutions while keeping compression
work below 10 MJ/kg, a threshold indicative of sustainable energy utilization.

Keywords: hydrogen storage; gaseous compression; multi-stage configuration; energy analysis;

efficiency

Citation: Franco, A.; Giovannini, C.

Hydrogen Gas Compression for
1. Introduction
Efficient Storage: Balancing Energy
and Increasing Density. Hydrogen
Hydrogen, as is widely acknowledged, serves as a crucial energy carrier, and its role in
2024, 5, 293–311. https://doi.org/ energy transition is intricately tied to its ability to store energy harnessed from renewable
10.3390/hydrogen5020017 sources. There is significant emphasis on hydrogen and its relevance. However, the
prevailing perception is that the debate tends to be overly general, initially encompassing
Academic Editors: Jacques Huot and
broad elements while potentially overlooking some crucial technical aspects [1]. The
Zhang-Hui Lu
discussion about hydrogen has been ongoing for over 40 years, yet the lack of compelling
Received: 24 April 2024 solutions for widespread applications is still tied to certain technical aspects related to
Revised: 14 May 2024 materials and intrinsic challenges related to hydrogen. Additionally, it is important to
Accepted: 22 May 2024 clarify that hydrogen is a carrier and as such needs to be integrated into an energy chain
Published: 25 May 2024 where energy balances must be respected, and the overall process efficiency must be high.
The recent interest in hydrogen is primarily associated with its potential integration with
the increasing penetration of renewable energy in energy systems. As outlined in Figure 1,
illustrating how hydrogen can be integrated into a system, hydrogen provides an additional
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
opportunity to further incorporate renewable sources, especially intermittent ones like
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
wind and photovoltaic (PV) solar. Figure 1 illustrates, in a simplified manner, the potential
This article is an open access article
integration of hydrogen in a specific industrial context, such as the steel sector, highlighting
distributed under the terms and
the significance of energy storage as well. The significance of hydrogen lies in its potential
conditions of the Creative Commons
to facilitate load leveling in systems anticipating an escalating integration of intermittent or
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
non-programmable renewable sources.
4.0/).

Hydrogen 2024, 5, 293–311. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5020017 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrogen

Hydrogen 2024, 5 294

Figure 1. Potential role of hydrogen storage in an industrial process.

Hence, it has become imperative to address hydrogen storage in a comprehensive

manner. Despite hydrogen’s high specific energy per unit mass, with 120 MJ/kg as the
lower heating value (LHV), its low energy density per unit volume (about 10 MJ/m3 )
presents a challenge for achieving compact, cost-effective, andffsecure energy-dense storage
solutions. The subject of hydrogen storage has been under scrutiny for an extended period,
leading to the proposition of various storage methods at different junctures. However,
ff
determining outright superiority among these methods remains elusive. Various storage
methods exist, each with their own advantages and drawbacks, considering both cost and
performance factors that depend on specific application requirements [2].
Currently, there is no ideal storage technology for most applications. Storage methods
fall into two categories: physical storage, where elemental hydrogen is stored, and materials-
based storage, where hydrogen is bound within other materials. From a distinct perspective,
hydrogen can be stored through three fundamental methods: compressed hydrogen gas
(CGH2 ), liquid hydrogen (LH2 ), and the solid storage of hydrogen (SSH2 ). The latter
involves the modification of hydrogen’s physical state [3].
tt have covered a spectrum of hydrogen-storage technologies, provid-
Some recent papers
ing insights into their status, advancements, and the potential implications for a sustainable-
energy future. Arsad et al. (2022), in [4], explore the integration of hydrogen energy storage
within hybrid renewable-energy systems. The review provides a comprehensive analysis of
current research trends and discusses future directions for this field. Wieliczko and Stetson,
in [5], emphasize the importance of hydrogen as an energy carrier and discuss various
technologies in this context. Usman, in [6], presents a thorough review of hydrogen-storage
methods and their statuses. The paper shows the strengths and limitations of different
storage approaches. Hassan et al., in [7], contribute to the discourse on the hydrogen energy
ff
future by focusing on advancements in storage technologies and their implications for
sustainability. Muthukumar et al., in [8], review the worldwide developmental status of
large-scale hydrogen storage using various technologies such as compressed, cryogenic,
ammonia, liquid organic hydrogen carrier, and solid-state hydrogen storage.
In the literature, it is possible to find mentions of electrochemical compression too.
This is a promising method that utilizes electrochemical reactions to compress hydrogen
gas and typically involves the use of proton exchange membrane (PEM) cells.
A theoretical advantage of electrochemical compression is its ability to achieve high
compression ratios with low energy consumption compared to mechanical compression
methods even if research in this area is ongoing. Despite electrochemical hydrogen com-
pression being a promising field in theory, it is currently particularly challenging to consider
it as a technology that could be available within a reasonable period.
Hydrogen 2024, 5 295

Considering the more “conventional” methods, from the literature analysis, the con-
clusion drawn is that while each avenue can be considered, they all come with their own
potentials and limitations, suggesting adaptability to specific contexts [9].
The liquid storage of hydrogen is highly energy-intensive due to the energy require-
ments associated with the liquefaction process. The process of converting gaseous hydrogen
into liquid hydrogen involves cooling the gas to extremely low temperatures, typically be-
low −240 ◦ C (in general −253 ◦ C). Moreover, storing hydrogen in a liquid phase demands
the maintenance of extremely low temperatures (hydrogen transitions to a liquid state
at 20 K under atmospheric pressure). The storage of hydrogen in liquid form demands
considerable energy and technologically advanced transportation infrastructure, making it
suitable for transporting massive quantities of hydrogen over long distances but less feasi-
ble for smaller-scale solutions. The storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen demand
specialized and well-insulated containers to maintain the low temperatures required. This
adds to the complexity and cost of the infrastructure. The complexity of the infrastructure
is not offset by a significant increase in hydrogen density, considering that at 1 bar and
−253 ◦ C, it is about 70 kg/m3 .
When considering liquefied natural gas as a comparison, operating at a temperature
of −162 ◦ C, methane density is approximately 420 kg/m3 , around 6 times higher than that
of hydrogen. Consequently, from an energy standpoint, for an equal volume of the vessel,
less than half the energy is transported, resulting in a ratio of approximately 5/2.
This energy requirement makes the overall hydrogen compression process less energy-
efficient, also outlined in the paper by Zhang et al. [10].
The challenges and energy costs associated with its compression, liquefaction, and
storage make alternative compression methods, such as gaseous compression or solid-state
storage, more attractive in certain applications.
Hydrogen storage through metal hydrides holds conceptual promise but introduces
additional challenges related to material stability, rendering its practical use complex.
In general, the choice of storage method depends on several factors such as application,
scale, infrastructure, and geographical considerations. For example, while high-pressure
storage might be suitable for stationary applications with existing infrastructure, solid-state
storage could be more advantageous for mobile applications due to its potentially higher
energy density and safety.
High-density storage methods such as liquefaction or high-pressure compression can
require significant energy input for both storage and transportation. This energy input
must be considered when evaluating the overall efficiency and sustainability of hydrogen
as an energy carrier. Recent developments and the anticipated widespread utilization
of hydrogen suggest that, for several reasons, gaseous compression remains the most
promising, especially for medium- and small-scale applications [2]. Various technologies
are employed for hydrogen compression, each with their own advantages and limitations.
Some common hydrogen compression technologies include piston compressors and di-
aphragm compressors, used for small- and small-to-medium-scale application and screw
compressors, which use rotating screws to compress hydrogen, as evidenced by Sdanghi
et al. in [11]. In the literature, the topic of compressing hydrogen in gaseous form has
been extensively explored (Zheng et al. [12]). Barthelemy, in [13], provides a historical
and technical overview of hydrogen-storage vessels discussing the challenges and con-
straints of hydrogen energy applications. The article explores the storage of hydrogen
as a compressed or refrigerated liquefied gas, detailing the evolution of storage methods
from seamless steel cylinders to aluminum cylinders and hoop-wrapped metallic cylinders.
The development of fully wrapped composite tanks for high-pressure hydrogen storage is
examined, along with the specific issues associated with these technologies. Ref. [14] offers
a synthetic analysis of hydrogen compression in gaseous form, focusing on recent advance-
ments in efficiency, energy consumption reduction, and safety enhancement. Research
efforts also aim to address challenges such as material compatibility, system reliability, and
cost-effectiveness. Mechanical compression, including piston compressors, diaphragm
Hydrogen 2024, 5 296

compressors, and screw compressors, is a widely used method for achieving higher pres-
sures. In a piston compressor, hydrogen gas is drawn into a cylinder and compressed by a
reciprocating piston.
Performance in hydrogen compression is evaluated based on factors such as energy
efficiency, compression ratio, and safety. Achieving high compression ratios is crucial for
storage and transportation applications. However, it is essential to balance this with energy
efficiency to minimize energy consumption. The prevalent choices are oriented to consider
two pressure levels (350 bar or 700 bar), but a criterion for defining an optimal compromise
among various process parameters is lacking. Research and development efforts continue to
improve the efficiency and economics of hydrogen compression technologies. Innovations
aim to address challenges such as heat management during compression to enhance overall
performance. However, it is crucial to note that even with the widespread adoption of
gaseous compression, the limited density of hydrogen at ambient conditions requires a push
towards high pressures, typically exceeding 300 bar. The application of higher pressures
brings thermodynamic advantages. An analysis of hydrogen’s thermophysical properties
reveals that, at environmental temperature and 500 bar pressure, the hydrogen density is
around 30 kg/m3 —approximately 300 times higher than that in ambient conditions. The
density further increases to about 50 kg/m3 under compression at 1000 bar. Nevertheless,
the use of extremely high pressures introduces a myriad of challenges, necessitating the use
of specialized materials with significant structural strength and resistance to embrittlement
and incurring more substantial energy expenditure to meet specific requirements. This
energy expenditure adds to a host of other factors, often rendering the hydrogen energy
chain inefficient.
In addition to energy costs associated with the electrolysis phase, the substantial
energy consumption during compression and end-use poses a risk of substantial reductions
in overall process efficiencies. Despite the extensive history of dealing with hydrogen com-
pression in gaseous form, identifying literature addressing the establishment of reasonable
targets that strike a balance between various elements (compression work, storage system
dimensions, physical characteristics, and associated costs) proves challenging. Hence, this
work, following an in-depth analysis of the current state of gaseous hydrogen-storage
methods, aims to outline criteria utilizing a multi-objective optimization approach, seeking
to define optimized storage systems tailored to specific applications.
The study analyzes the compression of hydrogen in gaseous form, aiming to identify
technological objectives with medium-term potential. It addresses material-related chal-
lenges, such as maximum temperature limits, and explores feasible technological solutions.
Energy requirements and technological objectives are mainly evaluated considering that
compressing H2 to high pressures results in a significant loss of its heating value, which
impacts the overall operation.
The paper is motivated by the recognition that a comprehensive understanding of the
storage phase, including its associated energy requirements and density considerations, is
crucial for the successful integration of hydrogen into energy systems. This understand-
ing will enable policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders to make informed
decisions regarding the development and deployment of hydrogen technologies.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the key thermophysical proper-
ties of hydrogen relevant to compression and outlines the storage requirements for gaseous
hydrogen; Section 3 gives a concise review of existing technological solutions for compress-
ing gaseous hydrogen, examining their advantages and limitations. Section 4 presents a
compression model for analyzing energy requirements, including a sensitivity analysis to
explore variations in parameters, while Section 5 discusses the results of the compression
analysis, comparing the actual compression work required for different combinations of
initial and final pressure. The conclusion summarizes the key insights and implications for
hydrogen compression technology and suggests areas for future research.
Hydrogen 2024, 5 297

2. Thermophysical Properties of Hydrogen and Gas Compression Storage Requirements

Hydrogen stands out as an element renowned for its thoroughly documented ther-
mophysical properties. Its allure lies in its energy potential, boasting a notably high lower
calorific value of 120 MJ/kg; this promising energy carrier encounters a limitation in the
form of its diminished density, particularly under atmospheric pressure conditions. Table 1
shows a comparison of the volumetric energy densities of hydrogen with those of other
gases typically used as fuels, such as natural gas and methane, under typical environmental
conditions. From the analysis of hydrogen’s thermophysical properties, it is evident that
gas-phase compression ffi is thermodynamically advantageous. Liquid-phase compression,
on the other hand, requires at least the same amount of work, but since the fraction of
liquid separated is smaller, as depicted in the figure for a generic Linde compression cycle,
𝜇= 0
a huge portion of the calorific power would be subtracted from the process. This is shown
in a schematic way in Figure 2.
tt
Table 1. Energy content of hydrogen and other fuels at environmental temperature and pressure.
tt tt
ffi Fuel Energy per Liter [MJ/L]
tt
Hydrogen (ambient pressure) 0.0107
Natural gas (ambient pressure) 0.0364
Methane (ambient pressure) 0.0378

Figure 2. Schematic representation of hydrogen compression in gaseous or liquid form in a T-S

diagram.

Thinking about a generic gas like hydrogen, there is a zone in the T-p diagram, where
the Joule–Thomson coefficient, µ, which represents the derivative of temperature with
respect to pressureis positive, while keeping enthalpy constant:
 
∂T
µ= >0 (1)
∂p h=cost

It represents the rate of change in temperature with respect to pressure for a fluid
undergoing throttling or expansion without external work or heat transfer. This allows for
the possibility of liquefying a gas through a simple expansion or, better, throttling. Indeed,
if the µ coefficient is negative, then decreasing the pressure increases the temperature,
whereas if µ is positive, decreasing the pressure in the expansion or throttling of Joule–
Thomson also decreases the gas temperature, enabling its liquefaction. In the case of
hydrogen, the zone of saturated vapors is well below the inversion zone (Figure 2).
Hydrogen 2024, 5 298

So, it is necessary to both compress and cool the fluid to be liquefied. In Figure 2, a
liquefaction process based on the Joule–Thomson effect is represented. As well evidenced
in Figure tt
2, this not only involves significant energy requirement but also results in the
separation of a small portion of hydrogen in liquid form, making it clear how compression
in the liquid phase is unlikely to be a convenient solution, mainly from an energy point
of view. In general, whether one wants to store hydrogen in liquid form or in gaseous
form, it will be necessary to significantly increase the gas pressure, which will allow for
a significant increase in density. The thermophysical properties of hydrogen are quite
disadvantageous, although even high-pressure gas compression and liquefaction bring
them closer to conventional fuels, albeit still at a certain distance. As can be observed from
an analysis of Figure 3, the volumetric energy content of hydrogen expressed in MJ/L, even
with a compression level of 700 bar, is still about 1/7 of that available with the main liquid
fuels typically used in the energy sector. Even liquefaction, despite all the highlighted
issues, does not solve the problem. The issue of compressing hydrogen in gaseous form
encompasses various aspects, including the significant consideration of storage vessels.
Historically, certain pressure levels, such as 350 bar and 700 bar, have been identified as
structurally feasible, with four distinct types of containers available for storage.

40

35

30
Energy per liter [MJ/l]

25

20

15

10

0
Hydrogen Natural gas Hydrogen Natural gas LPG (butane) Gasoline Diesel
(700 bar) (250 bar) (liquid) (liquid)

ff
Figure 3. Volumetric energy content of different ff
fuels in different operating conditions.

To compress the gas, multi-stage compression is typically employed. However, this

compression transformation does not occur adiabatically because it would result in re-
markably high energy consumption. For this reason, compression is conducted in multiple
stages, and between each stage, the hydrogen must be adequately cooled.
To better understand the issues associated with hydrogen compression, whether aimed
at maintaining it in liquid or gaseous conditions, it is necessary to have a clear idea of the
orders of magnitude associated with the two phases. The thermophysical properties of
hydrogen can be found in several books and articles such as [15,16], as well as in the NIST
webbook database [17].
Some relevant values are reported in Appendix A of the present paper. A substantial
increase in density is associated with the application of high pressure and a simultaneous
reduction in temperature. This correlation underscores the dynamic interplay between these
thermodynamic factors, providing valuable insights for optimizing hydrogen storage and
utilization strategies. As seen by consulting the data available in Appendix A, hydrogen
density experiences a significant increase at higher pressure and lower temperatures.
Density values cannot be easily calculated using the ideal gas equation of state, since
hydrogen exhibits behavior more characteristic of a real gas, but it could be evaluated
Hydrogen 2024, 5 299

using the values of the compressibility factor (Z), a dimensionless quantity that reflects
how much the gas deviates from ideal behavior.
Compressed hydrogen storage encompasses a spectrum of pressure levels tailored for
diverse applications. Small-scale storage, utilizing spherical vessels, commonly operates
at 20 bars. Medium-scale storage in pipelines typically involves a pressure of 100 bar,
while industrial-scale storage utilizes pressures in the range of 200–300 bar up to 1000 bar.
Determining the optimal compression pressure for storing hydrogen in gaseousttform is
a nuanced challenge, requiring a compromise between energy considerations, aiming to
minimize the impact on compression work and economic and safety factors. The latter
involves ensuring that containers do not incur excessive costs due to structural requirements
and materials. Identifying an optimum point among these diverse objectives becomes
crucial for each application, underscoring the need for a tailored approach. It is evident
that pursuing a specific objective aligned with the unique characteristics of each application
is imperative to address the complexities inherent in hydrogen storage.

3. Gaseous Hydrogen Compression: Analysis of Technological Solutions Available

Hydrogen compression in gaseous form plays a crucial role in various applications,
including hydrogen storage, transportation, and energy conversion. Various methods
for hydrogen compression are used. Each of them has their own unique characteristics,
advantages, and drawbacks [18].
Figure 4 summarizes the major compression technologies used for hydrogen appli-
cations, illustrating the types of energy required for achieving the desired pressure levels:
mechanical or thermal. Volumetric technologies, such as reciprocating piston compressors,
diaphragm/hydraulic/ionic compressors, and screw compressors, involve compressing a
gas volume within a control volume and then discharging it at increased pressure. Another
mechanical option is represented by dynamic compression (using centrifugal ore compres-
sors), in which kinetic energy is added to the inlet gas stream. While industrial references
for centrifugal compressors on pure hydrogen are lacking, this remains an active field of
development. Additionally, non-mechanical compression methods, including electrochem-
istry or the adsorption/absorption of hydrogen into porous materials, are of interest [19,20].
Table 2 aimsff to summarize the primary features of these various compression methods,
offering a comprehensive overview. Diaphragm compressors use flexible diaphragms to
compress the gas, while screw compressors utilize rotating screws to decrease the volume
of the gas.

Figure 4. A schematic representation of the main hydrogen compression method in gaseous form.
Hydrogen 2024, 5 300

Table 2. Characteristics of hydrogen compression; strengths and limits.

Compression
Characteristics Strengths Limitations
Method
Uses mechanical
Mechanical devices such as Widely used in some
Energy-intensive
Compression pistons, diaphragms, practical applications
or screw compressors
It can operate at low Requires high-purity
Uses electrochemical temperatures and hydrogen feedstocks,
Electrochemical
reactions to compress pressures, reducing which can add
Compression
hydrogen the need for external complexity and costs
energy input to the system
Simpler in design
Uses hydraulic Low efficiency and
Hydraulic compared to
pumps to compress potential leakage
Compression mechanical
hydrogen issues
compression systems
Adsorption or It is difficult to
absorption of achieve compression
Sorption-based
hydrogen onto solid ratios as high as those
Compression
materials to achieve by mechanical
compression methods

Hydrogen compression presents not only an energy challenge but also a concern for
material integrity. Hydrogen can induce embrittlement in metallic materials, reducing their
ductility despite maintaining their strength. This poses potential fracture risks from both a
fracture mechanics and fit-for-service standpoint, as defects may become unstable.
Despite some technologies already being commercial, there is considerable debate
surrounding the investigation of more widespread and advanced products to achieve
pressures ranging from 80 to 100 MPa, suitable for both stationary and mobile applications.
Small-scale storage using spherical vessels commonly operates at 2 MPa. Medium-scale
storage in pipes typically involves a pressure of 10 MPa [21,22]. Industrial-scale storage
utilizes pressures in the range of 20–30 MPa [23]. High operational pressures for light- and
heavy-duty road transport span from 35 to 70 MPa [24]. In some cases, such as hydrogen
refueling stations or large production areas, the compression of hydrogen up to 100 MPa
may be required. The isobaric and isenthalpic curves of interest for the storage of H2 in
compressed gaseous form are qualitatively represented in Figure 5.
The area of interest is identified by the minimum and maximum pressure and tem-
perature values of the compression solutions discussed in this paper, i.e., pressure in the
range of 0.1–100 MPa and temperature of 15–215 ◦ C (Figure 5). The analysis of several
compressors available on the market reveals that the maximum pressure level reached
is approximately 450 bar, with the most commonly used pressure being around 350 bar.
These compressors are of the volumetric type, typically consisting of three or four stages,
although compressors with five stages are also available, albeit with lower power ratings
and reduced mass flow rates. Table 3 presents some data that can be extracted from tech-
nical catalogues by various manufacturers, such as [25,26]. Compressors with maximum
output pressures of 700 bar are not commercially available in the market. Based on the
data provided in Table 3, rearranged from available commercial data and referencing a
total compression ratio of 350, the specific work associated with compression varies from
approximately 10 MJ/kg for larger-sized compressors to over 26 MJ/kg for smaller-sized
compressors. The nominal power of the various available models ranges from 3 kW up
to 230 kW, and the number of stages ranges from 2 to 5. The values of the specific works
required for compression are estimated in the last column of the table and are estimated
by the authors based on the data reported by the manufacturers. As can be seen, they are
Hydrogen 2024, 5 301

dependent on the overall compression ratio and are a decidedly significant fraction of the
calorific value of the fuel.

Figure 5. Zone of interest for the storage of H2 in compressed gaseous form: isobaric (red lines) and
isenthalpic (blue lines) curves and area of interest (green).

Table 3. Specification of some compressors of the commercial type.

Specific Work
Maximum Volumetric Nominal
Type/Number Inlet Pressure Pressure Ratio Compression
Outlet Pressure Flow Rate Power
of Stages [bar] (Max Value) (Estimated)
[bar] [m³/h] [kW]
[MJ/kg]
2 2–8 300–360 6.3 3.3–15.9 3–5.5 15.2–39.4
2 2–6 300–360 7.2 13.5–37.2 9.2–11 13.0–29.5
3 25–30 270–350 2.3 7–100 4–25 11.0–24.8
4 1.05–1.2 150–350 4.1 26–76 15–38 21.7–25.0
Up to 5 1.05–20 100–450 1.9 350–1000 132–230 10.1–16.3
Data for converting flow rate in kg/h: 1 m3 /h (20 ◦ C, 1013 hPa) = 0.083 kg/h [17].

4. Compression Model and Energy Requirements for Hydrogen Compression:

Sensitivity Analysis
Compressing hydrogen into the gaseous form is conceptually quite simple, but it
demands a significant energy input. In this section, we explore the modeling of hydrogen
compression, focusing on the comparison between idealized isothermal compression and
real-world compression processes. We begin by examining the theoretical framework of
isothermal compression, where the compression process occurs at a constant temperature.
Under ideal conditions, isothermal compression requires a minimal amount of energy
input, as dictated by the ideal gas law. However, real-world compression systems deviate
from ideal behavior due to factors such as friction, heat transfer, and inefficiencies inherent
in mechanical components. Through mathematical modeling and simulation, we investi-
gate how these deviations impact the energy requirements of hydrogen compression. By
comparing the energy expenditure of idealized isothermal compression with real-world
compression processes, we aim to quantify the efficiency losses associated with practical
compression systems. This analysis provides valuable insights into the thermodynamic
limitations and performance characteristics of hydrogen compression technologies. From a
thermodynamic perspective, the process of isothermal reversible compression requires the
Hydrogen 2024, 5 302

least amount of work. This can be computed under the assumption of ideal gas behavior,
using the following equation [10], from thermodynamic state 1 to thermodynamic state 2:
 
P2
wiT,id = R· T 1 ·ln (2)
P1

So, the energy required to obtain a final pressure of 700 bar, starting from temperature
of 300 K, is about 8.17 MJ/kg, while it is 7.30 MJ/kg for compression at 350 bar.
   
P2 700
wiT,id = R· T 1· ·ln = 4.157 ·300· ln = 8170 kJ/kg (3)
P1 1

The evaluation provided by Equation (2) only gives a rough estimation of the minimum
energy required to achieve the desired pressure, as it does not account for the non-ideal
behavior of the gas. This non-ideal behavior becomes more pronounced as the final
pressure increases. From a technical point of view, two pressure levels are known at which
compressions are made: 350 bar in the case of small- and medium-sized applications and
700 bar in the case of larger-sized applications. Obviously, none of these pressures can
be obtained with a single compression step since, from a technological point of view, it is
difficult to think of going beyond a compression ratio of 7. Therefore, starting from the
atmospheric pressure, to obtain a final value of 350 bar, at least three stages are necessary.
To reach 700 bars, at least four compression levels are required. However, since the
compressions are irreversible adiabatic and cause an increase in temperature, it is necessary
to remain below a certain temperature level (200 ◦ C). In practical scenarios, the temperature
of hydrogen undergoes a considerable increase even when utilizing advanced multi-stage
intercooling technology during compression. As a result, it is more accurate to characterize
the compression process as polytropic compression. The energy consumption for this
type of process can be determined by the following equation, using a polytropic exponent,
n, that, in accordance with the most disseminated textbooks of thermodynamics, can be
assumed, according to the considerations contained in [10], to be n = 1.36.
"  n −1 #
n P2 n
w pol = · R· T1 −1 (4)
n−1 P1

The use of a polytropic index lower than 1.4 is also in line with the idea that the
cooling system can be active during compression. As evidenced by the data presented in
Table 4, the findings indicate a significant overestimation of compression work, particularly
noticeable when targeting higher pressures. This underscores the necessity for a multi-
stage compression approach with intercooling, rather than simple polytropic compression
with index n, which would result in excessively high specific work requirements and
compression temperatures well above ambient levels. Moreover, the result reported in
the fourth column of Table 4 is an underestimated value of the specific work required for
compression, as it does not consider the compressibility factor Z which would make the
specific work even higher.
If one approaches the evaluation of the compression process as if it were isothermal,
two crucial elements are overlooked. On the one hand, there might be a temptation to
increase the compression pressure, leading to a significant rise in hydrogen density. On
the other hand, the full understanding of the energy expenditure associated with the
storage process would not be fully grasped. Due to the limitation of a pressure ratio of
approximately 7 for each stage, achieving a pressure level of 350 bar necessitates three
to five compression stages, while reaching 700 bars would require at least four stages.
Equation (3) suggests that, with perfect intercooling, where the gas returns to its initial
temperature before each subsequent compression stage, the literature estimates indicate that
the minimum compression work can reach 10.2 MJ/kg (calculated using a polytropic index
of n = 1.36, considering the concurrent action of the refrigeration system), as referenced
Hydrogen 2024, 5 303

in [10]. This value represents a 25% increase compared to what is needed for an ideal
isothermal process. However, the situation is further complicated by real gas behavior.

Table 4. Specific work for ideal isothermal compression and polytropic compression (with n = 1.36)
of hydrogen from 300 K and 0.1 MPa to a final pressure.

Final H2 Pressure Density wiT,id wpol

[MPa] [kgH2 /m3 ] [MJ/kgH2 ] [MJ/kgH2 ]
2 1.6 3.73 5.7
10 7.8 5.74 11.2
20 14.7 6.61 14.4
30 20.8 7.11 16.6
35 23.8 7.30 17.5
70 40.0 8.17 22.0
100 49.4 8.61 24.6

Considering both the number of compression stages, N, the compressibility factor of

hydrogen, Z, and an isentropic efficiency of compression, his , the compression work can be
better evaluated with the following:
"  k −1
Pst ( Nk )
  #
k Z
wm−s = N· · · R· Tin −1 (5)
k−1 ηis Pin

The practical energy consumption for hydrogen compression in real application typ-
ically exceeds the theoretical minimum by at least 2.5 times. Consequently, in the case
of reaching 700 bars, it can be higher than 20 MJ/kg, marking an unsustainable level,
especially when considering it constitutes more than 15% of the calorific value. A more
accurate assessment can be made by considering the differences in enthalpy at various
compression stages, considering plausible values for isentropic efficiency.
Figure 6 shows the temperature–entropy diagram of intercooled multi-stage com-
pression with four stages of compression, where p1 is the initial pressure of hydrogen to
store and p8 equals the storage pressure desired (pst ). The work of compression per kg of
hydrogen in an intercooled multi-stage process (wm−s ) can be evaluated by the sum of the
enthalpy changes between the stages. In intercooled multi-stage compression, the specific
work (wm−s ) can be evaluated, as schematically referred to in Figure 6 by the isentropic
efficiency (η is ) of the compressor, where four compression stages are referred to, as follows:

(h2is − h1 ) + (h4is − h3 ) + (h6is − h5 ) + (h8is − h7 )

wm−s = (6)
ηis

and in general

w m − s = ( h 2 − h1 ) + ( h4 − h3 ) + ( h6 − h5 ) + ( h8 − h7 ) (7)

The power of compressor is estimated considering the mass flow rate, m, as follows:

W = m · wm−s (8)

In general, to estimate the compression work, it is necessary to define the intermediate

pressures (pint ), i.e., the pressures at which the gas is intercooled between two stages.
Thus, for example, pint,1 equals the final pressure of the first stage and the initial
pressure of the second stage of compression. The intermediate pressures can be selected
using the following:
  i
Pst N
Pint,i = with i = 1, 2, . . . , ( N − 1) (9)
Pin
Hydrogen 2024, 5 304

where N is considered as the total number of compression stages and the initial compression
pressure (Pin ) equals 1 bar.

Figure 6. Temperature–entropy diagram of intercooled four-stage compression.

This choice can minimize the maximum temperature reached during compression and
the specific work (wm−s ) necessary
− as the storage pressure and the number of stages vary.
To reach a well-defined pressure, the compression work is minimized when all the stages
β
have the same compression ratio (β), so that
 𝑝 1
pst N
β= = 𝑝
𝛽 (10)
pin

Therefore, the intermediate pressures minimizing the work of a multi-stage intercooled

ffi
compression that has stages with the same isentropic efficiency can be defined as follows:

βi with
pint,i 𝑝= p, in=· 𝑝 − 1)
⋅ 𝛽 i = 1, 2, . . . , ( N − (11)

In the context of hydrogen gas compression processes, it is important to consider that

if hydrogen is introduced at environmental pressure (1 bar), the maximum compression
ratio β𝛽cannot exceed 7. This means that to achieve a pressure level of 350 bar, at least three
compression stages are required (1–7, 7–49, 49–343 bar). However, another significant factor
to consider is the maximum temperature during compression, which should ideally not
tt
exceed 150–200 ◦ C to avoid hydrogen embrittlement issues. Consequently, the maximum
compression ratio between stages should not exceed five. Therefore, in practical technical
solutions, reaching a pressure level of 350 bar is commonly associated with the use of at
least four compression stages, theoretically allowing for pressure levels of approximately
625 bar (1–5, 5–25, 25–125, 125–625 bar). Reaching a pressure level of 700 bar or more
requires at least five stages of compression.

5. Analysis of the Real Compression Work with Respect to the Various Combinations of
Initial and Final Pressure
In this section, the authors present some evaluations based on the model developed
in Section 4, aimed at understanding the energy cost of compression processes under
conditions as close to real as possible. To achieve this, it is necessary to assume a plausible
value for the isentropic compression efficiency. There is limited literature available concern-
ffi
ing isentropic efficiency for H2 compressors, but depending on the compressor type, size
ffi
(scale), and design, this value varies in the range of ~55–80% for most compressor designs,

ffi
Hydrogen 2024, 5 305

according to [11,14,22]. Therefore, considering an isentropic compression efficiency of 0.8

and assuming perfect intercooling, along with the initial pressure of the hydrogen and the
desired pressure at the end of the process, as well as the maximum temperature achiev-
able due to structural constraints, it follows the need to determine the optimal number
of compression stages. As observed in Table 5, in terms of the specific work required for
gas compression, the difference between using two, three, or four compression stages is
not particularly relevant. However, what is noteworthy is the maximum temperature:
while with two stages, it reaches approximately 217 ◦ C, three or four stages allow for much
greater limitation of the maximum temperature. Similar considerations can be made if
a final gas pressure of 10 MPa is required; in this scenario, it is not feasible to use only
two compression stages since the compression ratio would be approximately 10 (Table 6).
The situation becomes more complicated if aiming to achieve a final pressure of 350 bar.
In this case, maintaining reasonable value of maximum temperature requires four or five
compression stages. The compression work required is about 11 MJ/kg, a value that is
approximately 10% of the fuel’s calorific value. Table 7 shows the data related to the two
cases with four or five compression stages. Obviously, the specific energy required for
compression increases as the isentropic compression efficiency decreases. Table 8 illustrates
the specific work necessary if the isentropic efficiency is 0.7. In this case, the maximum tem-
perature and the specific work of compression increases with respect to the cases analyzed
in Tables 5–7.

Table 5. Specific work for multi-stage compression to 2 MPa (η is = 0.80): Tin = 20 ◦ C, pin = 0.1 MPa.

Number of T2 T4 T6 T8 wm−s
β wm−s /wiT,id
Stages [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [MJ/kgH2 ]
2 4.5 216.7 214.8 5.7 1.56
3 2.7 140.5 142.6 140.8 5.3 1.45
4 2.1 106.8 109.5 107.6 107.3 5.1 1.40

Table 6. Specific work for multi-stage compression to 10 MPa (η is = 0.80): Tin = 20 ◦ C, pin = 0.1 MPa.

Number of T2 T4 T6 T8 wm−s
β wm−s /wiT,id
Stages [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [MJ/kgH2 ]
3 4.6 220.2 222.9 222.8 8.8 1.59
4 3.2 164.6 162.7 162.5 162.8 8.3 1.49

Table 7. Data for intercooled multi-stage compression (η is = 0.80) from 0.1 MPa, 20 ◦ C to 35 MPa.

Number of T2 T4 T6 T8 T 10 wm − s
β wm−s /wiT,id
Stages [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [MJ/kgH2 ]
4 4.3 209.5 211.4 211.4 212.5 11.3 1.61
5 3.2 164.6 167.0 166.7 166.7 167.6 10.9 1.54

As shown in Table 8, decreasing the isentropic efficiency from 0.8 to 0.7 results in
both an increase in the specific work required for compression and a rise in the maximum
temperature. The evaluations we have made up to this point consider, for the sake of ho-
mogeneity, an initial hydrogen pressure of 1 bar. However, utilizing an initial compression
pressure higher than 1 bar can be advantageous for reducing both the specific compression
work and the maximum temperatures reached. In the case of hydrogen production using
electrolyzers, the inlet pressure in the compression system can be even higher. Commercial
electrolyzers typically produce hydrogen with pressures ranging from 1 to 35 bar. Utilizing
a higher inlet pressure results in a reduction in the work required for compression and
potentially in the number of compression stages needed. For instance, considering an inlet
Hydrogen 2024, 5 306

pressure of 30 bar (feasible for hydrogen after the electrolysis process), significant reduc-
tions in both the specific compression work and the maximum temperature, as well as the
number of stages required, can be achieved. Table 9 shows, for example, the date relative to
three different values of the final pressures in particular, pst = 350, 700, or 1000 bar, which
are typical values for high size storage infrastructures, like hydrogen re-fueling stations,
as discussed in Section 3. Referring to the previously developed sensitivity analysis, we
have established that the compression of hydrogen necessitates an additional energy input,
particularly noteworthy when dealing with substantial pressure increases, amounting to ap-
proximately 10% of the calorific value of hydrogen if a pressure ratio of 700:1 is considered.
This factor gains even more significance when considering that a portion of the energy has
already been dissipated during the electrolysis process. It is crucial to emphasize, however,
that the energy expenditure during the compression phase does not escalate significantly
in relation to the compression ratio.

Table 8. Optimized specific work of compression from 20 ◦ C and 0.1 MPa. Multi-stage intercooled
compression with η is = 0.70, varying the storage pressure and the number of stages.

Three Stages Four Stages Five Stages

pst
T max wm − s T max wm − s T max wm − s
[MPa]
[◦ C] [MJ/kg] [◦ C] [MJ/kg] [◦ C] [MJ/kg]
2 160 6.0 122 5.8 100 5.7
10 185 9.5 147 9.2
20 214 11.4 171 10.9
30 232 12.5 185 12.0
35 242 13.0 191 12.4
70 219 14.5
100 235 15.8

Table 9. Intercooled multi-stage compression (η is = 0.80) with three stages from initial condition of
20 ◦ C and 3 MPa.

pst T max wm − s wm−s /LHVH2 * 100

β wm−s /wiT,id
[MPa] [◦ C] [MJ/kgH2 ] [%]
35 2.3 119 4.5 3.8 1.49
70 2.9 152 6.2 5.2 1.61
100 3.2 171 7.2 6.0 1.67

This implies that the selection of an optimal compromise between enhancing density
and minimizing work input might be contingent on other critical factors. These factors
include the maximum number of compression stages, the upper limit on compression
temperature, and the maximum compression ratio associated with a single stage. Balancing
these elements becomes important in determining the overall efficiency and feasibility of
hydrogen compression processes. Analyzing all the data related to the specific work for
compressing hydrogen in gaseous form, wm−s , it can be observed that this is estimable,
depending on the case, at a percentage ranging between 40% and 67%, higher than the
ideal work achievable in an isothermal compression according to Equation (2), wiT,id .
Comparing the values reported in the previous tables with those from commercial
systems available on the market, it is evident that the specific compression work values
estimated from the catalog data (see Table 3) are significantly higher than those derived
from theoretical evaluations like ours. This suggests that the actual isentropic compression
efficiency may be lower than the considered values (0.7–0.8), possibly around 0.5–0.55.
However, it is clear that achieving higher isentropic efficiencies may be linked to larger
compressors, which is therefore conceivable.
As relevant concluding remarks of the analysis, we can summarize the following main
elements. The compression of hydrogen in the gaseous form requires relevant energy input,
Hydrogen 2024, 5 307

and for significant pressures, this energy input is approximately 10% of the calorific value
of hydrogen. This is particularly notable, especially considering that a portion of the energy
is already dissipated for hydrogen production, as, for example, in the electrolysis process.
It is important to highlight that the energy spent during the compression phase does not
increase proportionally with the compression ratio. This suggests that the choice of an
optimal compromise between increasing density and minimizing work input depends on
several factors beyond the compression ratio itself.
The selection of an optimal compromise hinges on other relevant elements such as the
maximum number of compression stages and also involves considerations of the maximum
compression temperature and the maximum compression ratio associated with a single
stage. Balancing all of these elements is crucial for determining the overall efficiency and
feasibility of hydrogen compression processes. This underscores the need for a nuanced ap-
proach that considers multiple factors in achieving an effective and sustainable compression
strategy for hydrogen.
Finally, we have seen how reaching a maximum pressure level of 700 bar is quite
reasonable: lower pressure levels do not seem particularly advantageous, considering
that the energy extracted from the process is not significantly higher than that required
to achieve a pressure level of 350 bar. Of course, we must also consider that the energy
expended for compression is energy withdrawn from the energy chain. Indeed, thinking
about a system like the one depicted in Figure 1, hydrogen storage can be justified only by
the need to introduce greater flexibility into the energy system, and gaseous storage appears
to be the most relevant. However, in terms of energy balance, of the 120 MJ contained in
one unit of hydrogen mass, at least 40 MJ is dissipated in the electrolysis process (Franco
and Giovannini, in [27]) and 10–15 MJ is additionally consumed in the compression phase.
This means that more than 40–45% of the renewable energy converted is lost in the chain
before utilization. The quantity would certainly be higher when considering storage in
liquid form. Therefore, optimizing techniques for storing hydrogen in gaseous form is
certainly an important objective, but it is still important to keep in mind that the use of
storage must always be carefully evaluated.

6. Conclusions
This study examined the issue of hydrogen compression in gaseous form from a
thermodynamic perspective. After outlining the context and analyzing some of the com-
mercially available technical solutions, several cases of practical technical interest were
evaluated. The specific work for compression depends on the desired final pressure and
the maximum achievable temperature. Limiting the temperature to 150–200 ◦ C requires
restricting the compression ratio between successive stages. Employing multiple compres-
sion stages is necessary to achieve high final pressures; for instance, to attain a pressure of
350 bar, at least four compression stages are required. The specific compression work is
about 11 MJ/kg, approximately 10% of the lower heating value of the fuel. This should
be considered in assessing the overall energy efficiency. However, the achievable increase
in density is significant, which may offset the energy cost of compression. Significant
reductions in specific work can be achieved by using higher hydrogen inlet pressures, such
as 30 bar. In this scenario, besides obtaining a substantial reduction in compression work,
it is possible to limit the temperature to slightly above 100 ◦ C. For example, using five
compression stages, it is feasible to compress up to 1000 bar with an energy expenditure of
approximately 6 MJ/kg, equivalent to around 5% of the fuel’s lower heating value. Here, a
concise summary of the information is provided.
Examining the compression work required for different pressure combinations high-
lights the importance of optimizing compression stages. Data in Tables 7 and 8 underscore
that while the number of compression stages affects temperature control, the specific work
required remains consistent. Achieving a pressure of 700 bar appears reasonable, consider-
ing marginal energy gains for lower pressures. However, it is vital to recognize that energy
expended during compression detracts from overall energy efficiency. Approximately 40%
Hydrogen 2024, 5 308

of renewable energy is lost in the chain before utilization, with compression contributing
significantly to this loss. The energy expended during compression does not increase
proportionally with the compression ratio, necessitating a nuanced approach to balancing
efficiency and feasibility. The choice of compression strategy must consider factors like
the number of compression stages, maximum compression temperature, and compression
ratio. Achieving an optimal compromise between increasing density and minimizing work
input is crucial for efficient hydrogen compression.
In summary, while optimizing compression techniques is crucial for hydrogen storage,
the careful evaluation of storage utilization remains essential, considering its impact on
overall energy efficiency.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F.; formal analysis, A.F. and C.G.; methodology, A.F.
and C.G.; data curation, A.F. and C.G.; supervision, A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F.;
writing—review, and editing, A.F. and C.G. funding acquisition, A.F. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4
Component 2 Investment 1.3—Call for tender No. 1561 of 11.10.2022 of Ministero dell’Università
e della Ricerca (MUR); project funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU. Award Num-
ber: Project code PE0000021, Concession Decree No. 1561 of 11.10.2022 adopted by Ministero
dell’Università e della Ricerca (MUR), CUP I53C22001450006, according to attachment E of Decree
No. 1561/2022, Project title “Network 4 Energy Sustainable Transition—NEST”.
Data Availability Statement: The main data presented in the paper are reported. Additional data are
available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca
(MUR) for supporting the project entitled “Network 4 Energy Sustainable Transition—NEST” and
the support of the technical and administrative staff of the University of Pisa.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature
h Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
i Generic i-th stage
k Exponent of adiabatic transformation
LHV Lower heating value, MJ/kg
m Hydrogen mass flow rate, kg/s
n Exponent of polytropic transformation
N Number of compression stages
P, p Pressure, Pa (bar, MPa)
s Specific entropy, kJ/(kg K)
R Gas constant, J/(kg K)
T Temperature, K or ◦ C
v Specific volume, m3 /kg
W Compressor power, kW (MW)
Z Compressibility factor
w Specific work of compression, MJ/kg
β Pressure ratio
ρ Density, kg/m3
η Efficiency
µ Joule–Thomson coefficient, K/Pa
Hydrogen 2024, 5 309

Subscripts, superscripts, acronyms, and abbreviations

CGH2 Compressed hydrogen gas
id Ideal value
in Inlet value
int Intermediate
is Isentropic
iT Isothermal
LH2 Hydrogen in liquid form
max Maximum value
m−s Intercooled multi-stage
pol Polytropic
PV Photovoltaic
SSH2 Solid storage of hydrogen
st Storage

Appendix A. The Particular Behavior of Hydrogen and Its Thermophysical Properties

This appendix reports the main thermophysical properties used in this work and taken
from the literature. Table A1 and Figure A1 present various density values as a function of
typical combinations of pressure and temperature, considering a range between −100 ◦ C
and 125 ◦ C. Analyzing the data, we observe that the value of the hydrogen density increases
significantly from approximately 0.08 kg/m3 at atmospheric conditions and reaches values
higher than 20 kg/m3 , only if the pressure exceeds 300 bars.
While the behavior of most gases can be approximated using the ideal gas law, the
behavior of H2 deviates significantly from ideal gas model predictions. Hydrogen, with
other things being equal, takes up more space than the ideal gas law predicts. This deviation
is accounted for using the compressibility factor (Z): Z = 1 for an ideal gas.

Table A1. Hydrogen density (kg/m3 ) at different temperatures (◦ C) and pressures (MPa).

T [◦ C] 0.1 MPa 1 MPa 5 MPa 10 MPa 30 MPa 50 MPa 100 MPa

−100 0.1399 1.3911 6.7608 12.992 32.614 46.013 66.660
−75 0.1223 1.2154 5.9085 11.382 29.124 41.848 62.322
−50 0.1086 1.0793 5.2521 10.141 26.336 38.384 58.503
−25 0.0976 0.9708 4.7297 9.1526 24.055 35.464 55.123
0 0.0887 0.8822 4.3036 8.3447 22.151 32.968 52.115
25 0.0813 0.8085 3.9490 7.6711 20.537 30.811 49.424
50 0.0750 0.7461 3.6490 7.1003 19.149 28.928 47.001
75 0.0696 0.6928 3.3918 6.6100 17.943 27.268 44.810
100 0.0649 0.6465 3.1688 6.1840 16.883 25.793 42.819
125 0.0609 0.6061 2.9736 5.8104 15.944 24.474 41.001

By analyzing the behavior of hydrogen and other gases, we can observe that for
pressures lower than 600 bar, Z is greater for H2 compared to other gases such as CH4 ,
O2 , and CO2 . Thus, when compressing H2 from 1 bar to 700 bar, the density increases
less than 500 times, going from 0.0887 kg/m3 to 42.9 kg/m3 at a temperature of 0 ◦ C. The
direct dependence on Z leads to a higher compression power demand for H2 . Table A2 and
Figure A2 provide the values of the compressibility factor (Z), a dimensionless quantity
that reflects how much the gas deviates from ideal behavior, for similar values of pressure
and temperature. As can be observed, the compressibility factor Z, which measures the
deviation between the behavior of the ideal gas and the real gas, remains close to 1 for
pressures up to around 100 bar (still less than 1.05–1.06), but becomes rather significant for
pressure values above 500 bar, exceeding values of 1.25–1.3 at temperatures below 100 ◦ C.
Hydrogen 2024, 5 310

Figure A1. Hydrogen density as a function of temperature and pressure.

ff
Table A2. Compressibility factor Z of hydrogen at different temperatures (◦ C) and pressures (MPa).

T [◦ C] 0.1 MPa 1 MPa 5 MPa 10 MPa 30 MPa 50 MPa 100 MPa

−
−100 1.0007 1.0066 1.0356 1.0778 1.2880 1.5216 2.1006
−75 1.0007 −
1.0068 1.0355 1.0751 1.2604 1.4620 1.9634
−50 1.0007 −
1.0067 1.0344 1.0714 1.2377 1.4153 1.8572
−25 1.0006 −
1.0065 1.0329 1.0675 1.2186 1.3776 1.7725
0 1.0006 1.0062 1.0313 1.0637 1.2022 1.3462 1.7032
25 1.0006 1.0059 1.0297 1.0601 1.1879 1.3197 1.6454
50 1.0006 1.0056 1.0281 1.0567 1.1755 1.2969 1.5964
75 1.0005 1.0053 1.0266 1.0536 1.1644 1.2770 1.5542
100 1.0005 1.0050 1.0252 1.0507 1.1546 1.2596 1.5175
125 1.0005 1.0048 1.0240 1.0481 1.1458 1.2441 1.4852

Figure A2. Hydrogen compressibility (Z) at different temperatures and pressures.

ff
References
1. Ajanovic, A.; Sayer, M.; Haas, R. On the future relevance of green hydrogen in Europe. Appl. Energy 2024, 358, 122586. [CrossRef]
2. Makridis, S. Hydrogen storage and compression. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1702.06015.

tt

tt
Hydrogen 2024, 5 311

3. Bossel, U.; Eliasson, B. Energy and the Hydrogen Economy, US DOE, EERE. Available online: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/
pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2024).
4. Arsad, A.Z.; Hannan, M.A.; Al-Shetwi, A.Q.; Mansur, M.; Muttaqi, K.M.; Dong, Z.Y.; Blaabjerg, F. Hydrogen energy storage
integrated hybrid renewable energy systems: A review analysis for future research directions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47,
17285–17312. [CrossRef]
5. Wieliczko, M.; Stetson, N. Hydrogen technologies for energy storage: A perspective. MRS Energy Sustain. 2020, 7, E41. [CrossRef]
6. Usman, M.R. Hydrogen storage methods: Review and status. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112743. [CrossRef]
7. Hassan, Q.; Sameen, A.Z.; Salman, H.M.; Jaszczur, M.; Al-Jiboory, A.K. Hydrogen energy future: Advancements in storage
technologies and implications for sustainability. J. Energy Storage 2023, 72, 108404. [CrossRef]
8. Muthukumar, P.; Kumar, A.; Afzal, M.; Bhogilla, S.; Sharma, P.; Parida, A.; Jana, S.; Kumar, E.A.; Pai, R.K.; Jain, I.P. Review on
large-scale hydrogen storage systems for better sustainability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 33223–33259. [CrossRef]
9. Tang, D.; Tan, G.L.; Li, G.W.; Liang, J.G.; Ahmad, S.M.; Bahadur, A.; Humayun, M.; Ullah, H.; Khan, A.; Bououdina, M.
State-of-the-art hydrogen generation techniques and storage methods: A critical review. J. Energy Storage 2023, 64, 107196.
[CrossRef]
10. Zhang, J.; Fisher, T.S.; Ramachandran, P.V.; Gore, J.P.; Mudawar, I. A review of heat transfer issues in hydrogen storage
technologies. J. Heat Transf. 2005, 127, 1391–1399. [CrossRef]
11. Sdanghi, G.; Maranzana, G.; Celzard, A.; Fierro, V. Review of the current technologies and performances of hydrogen compression
for stationary and automotive applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 102, 150–170. [CrossRef]
12. Zheng, J.; Liu, X.; Xu, P.; Liu, P.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, J. Development of high-pressure gaseous hydrogen storage technologies. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 1048–1057. [CrossRef]
13. Barthélémy, H. Hydrogen storage–Industrial prospectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 17364–17372. [CrossRef]
14. Khan, M.A.; Young, C.; MacKinnon, C.; Layzell, D. The Techno-Economics of Hydrogen Compression. Transit. Accel. Tech. Briefs
2021, 1, 1–36. Available online: https://transitionaccelerator.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TA-Technical-Brief-1.1_TEEA-
Hydrogen-Compression_PUBLISHED.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2024).
15. Gstrein, G.; Klell, M. Properties of Hydrogen Internal Report from the Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics;
Graz University of Technology: Graz, Austria, 2004.
16. Klell, M. Storage of hydrogen in the pure form. In Handbook of Hydrogen Storage; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 1–37.
17. NIST. Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems. Available online: https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/ (accessed on
15 January 2024).
18. Bosu, S.; Rajamohan, N. Recent advancements in hydrogen storage-Comparative review on methods, operating conditions and
challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 52, 352–370. [CrossRef]
19. Zou, J.; Han, N.; Yan, J.; Feng, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Fan, J.; Zeng, L.; Li, H.; Wang, H. Electrochemical compression technologies
for high-pressure hydrogen: Current status, challenges and perspective. Electrochem. Energy Rev. 2020, 3, 690–729. [CrossRef]
20. Durmus, G.N.B.; Colpan, C.O.; Devrim, Y. A review on the development of the electrochemical hydrogen compressors. J. Power
Sources 2021, 494, 229743. [CrossRef]
21. 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]
22. Tahan, M.R. Recent advances in hydrogen compressors for use in large-scale renewable energy integration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2022, 47, 35275–35292. [CrossRef]
23. Barthélémy, H.; Weber, M.; Barbier, F. Hydrogen storage: Recent improvements and industrial perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 2017, 42, 7254–7262. [CrossRef]
24. Elberry, A.M.; Thakur, J.; Santasalo-Aarnio, A.; Larmi, M. Large-scale compressed hydrogen storage as part of renewable
electricity storage systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 15671–15690. [CrossRef]
25. Sauer Compressors: Hydrogen Compressors Catalogue. Available online: https://www.sauercompressors.com/gases/technical-
gases/hydrogen-compressors (accessed on 17 March 2024).
26. Coltri Compressors: Booster Hydrogen Catalogue. Available online: https://coltri.com/en/download/catalogs/hydrogen-
booster-catalog/ (accessed on 20 April 2024).
27. Franco, A.; Giovannini, C. Recent and Future Advances in Water Electrolysis for Green Hydrogen Generation: Critical Analysis
and Perspectives. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16917. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.