The MHSDT modeling results are summarized in Table , which indicate that both the VSC and GSC of (LiNH2+2LiH)@(6-nm PC) are higher than those of bulk (LiNH2+2LiH). The differences are significant, particularly in light of the other properties of the storage system. Specifically, the system mass using the bulk material is 25% heavier than that of the nanoscale material. This is a consequence of the combined poor heat transfer and higher desorption enthalpy of bulk (LiNH2+2LiH) , which increases the number of heating/cooling tubes by a factor of 3.4 compared with (LiNH2+2LiH)@(6-nm PC). Moreover, the amount of hydrogen that must be burned to raise the bed temperature sufficiently to meet the minimum H2 pressure target (5 bar) is 66% higher for the bulk. The resulting maximum bed temperature is over 100 ºC higher for the bulk material compared to the nanoconfined material. Although these are primarily thermodynamic effects that emphasize the beneficial effects of nanoscaling (the reaction enthalpy ΔH (LiNH2+2LiH)@(6-nm PC) is more than 20 kJ/molH2 lower than ΔH of (LiNH2+2LiH)@(6-nm PC)), they are also a product of the higher system mass. It is thus clear that, even for a storage material that is far from optimal (but serves as a useful illustration), system analysis shows that key gauges of system