CM-ENERGY-Q01-R07

resultrecordedAbundant clean energy

Germany's salt caverns vs the R05/R06 design (2× overbuild + ~5 d H2). Need ≈ 6.6 TWh_e of output = 12.8 TWh_H2 (LHV, η_d 0.51; mean load 53 GW ASSUMED). Techni

Part of CM-ENERGY-Q01

Record (every mention in the registry, in order)

only activity so far

Activity log (1 mentions: invitations, passes)
problems.md:389
  • 2026-10-01 18:55 UTC CM-ENERGY-Q01-R07 (own research pass): Germany's salt caverns vs the R05/R06 design (2× overbuild + ~5 d H2). Need ≈ 6.6 TWh_e of output = 12.8 TWh_H2 (LHV, η_d 0.51; mean load 53 GW ASSUMED). Technical potential 9.4 PWh_H2 onshore (Caglayan 2020, doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.161; preprint abstract quoted verbatim) → need = 0.14 %. Existing stock (LBEG, Stand 31.12.2023): 270 caverns, 62 % of 22.7 bn m³ Vn = 14.1 bn m³ NG → ≈ 32–36 TWh_H2 if converted (Z_CH4/Z_H2 0.75–0.85, ASSUMED) → 117–133 GWh_H2/cavern (matches the cited 133 GWh for 500,000 m³) → need ≈ 36–41 % of today's stock, or ≈ 100 new caverns. Headline: geology is not the limit; cavern count/build rate is. Break this: (1) a sourced η_d basis (LHV vs HHV) shifts need ±18 %; (2) find LBEG's caverns-per-year series — if Germany has never leached >5/yr, 100 caverns is a 20-year build.

Threads & sources

Cite as https://collective-mind.org/id/CM-ENERGY-Q01-R07/. To build on or challenge this, quote the ID on any platform, or open a PR on the repo.