Another alternative.
4 Likes
Great stuff.
2 Likes
Hindenberg is irrelevsnt to the discussiion as the airship is very different to existing storage vessels. Hydrogen is combustible, so is petrol, diesel and ither existing fuel sources. The rate of combustion and amount of energy released during its combustion may be different to other fuels, but it is not a reason not to use it.
Toyota has been carrying out extensive research on modern composite fuel tanks for vehicles to prove they are very safe.
Yes, and there are also scores of petrol station explosions, fuel tanker explosions, driver and passengers dying in vehicles regularly due to ruptured fuel tanks etc as well, but it doesnât stop us using petrol in the past as a energy source.
There are also regular LPG/natural gas explosions involving the storage and handling of these fuels, but again, we continue to use them.
Even diesel can be explosive under the right conditions, resulting in catastrophic explosions like thise which occurred about century ago in the US.
Even li-ion batteries have fire and explosion risksâŠthere have been many reports of explosive fires in accidents ir when puncturedâŠand they have even brought down aircraft carrying batteries.
Every energy source has risks. Hydrogen is no different and any risk can be effectively managed through research and development, design and implementation of adequate safety controls.
If we want a zero risk energy source, it is not possible.
Yes, the strategy is about developing hydrogen from renewable energy. Clean coal is not renewable energy so not in the scopr of the strategy.
From what Dr Alan Finkel alluded to, it is expected that in the interim that hydrocarbon based hydrogen may be used to supplement renewable hydrogen until such time there is sufficient produced to replace all alternative supplies.
Dr Finkel slso suggested that hydrogen has enormous potential to allow the export of renewable energyâŠto those countries which are energy poor or have significant energy deficits. Early development of renewable hydrogen in Australia allows Australia to continue to be a net exporter of energyâŠto provide energy to other countries without the same energy resources or potential.
Not developing a renewable hydrogen industry means Auatralia will be left behind and miss a golden opportunity. We have the (solar) resources and ready access to (sea) water to allow hydrogen production through electrolysis.
This is principally why it is one of the few issues supported fully by COAG and the CommonwealthâŠas they donât want to miss out when an opportunity knocks.
I should ahve also said in an earlier post that a lot of the potential hydrogen infrastructure exists for domestic vehiclesâŠnamely existing petrol stations. They would require modification at some cost, but it may be potentially easier than rolling out EV charging stations nationally to cater for a national fleet of EVsâŠwould possibly would require widespread electricity network upgrades etc.
4 Likes
It may come to pass?
I still wonder if, or how rapidly the suggested progression will indeed occur, or will the dreamed of overseas demand for hydrogen see Australia happily exporting the clean hydrogen fuel, irrespective of source. ScoMo has recently quipped that we should get kudos and perhaps more for exporting all that LNG to OS buyers. Why? Because it reduces their CO2 emissions, which sort of makes us the heroes, and itâs why we should not worry to much about the cost to Australiaâs carbon footprint. It is a good thing that we do. Even better if you hold our current GHG emissions up to a mirror when looking at them.
Which bit have I misunderstood?
2 Likes
Forget the battery. The ZED70, an interesting EV conversion shows what can be done. The price?
2 Likes
It wonât be from fossil fuel in the longer term.
The consultation discussion paper for the strategy can also be found hereâŠ
This is also the proposal Dr Finkel tabled at COAGâŠ
Https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/HydrogenCOAGWhitePaper_WEB.pdf
It has been reported that even some of the state and Commonwealth MPs which have concerns about renewable electricity have jumped on board and fulling supported the hydrogen strategy. I suspect that it does provide Australia with being energy independent and also a future leader in energy exports, irrespective of what hapoens to the existing fossil fuel sectir.
It is worth reading the strategy website and news area, as well as listening to Dr Finkelâs recent interview on the ABC.
This will address many of the questions raised.
It is also worth noting that the strategy is being developed in collaboration with South Korea, Japan and GermanyâŠeach of these countries are also investing in hydrogen research and have identified the future for hydrogen (to possibly assist with meeting their own CO2 reduction targets). In an earlier post I linked the Japanese strategy/roadmap. While I havenât heard or read anything, I have the feeling that these countries are also involved as they also donât want to miss out on the opportunity Australia has. The other advantage is these countries industries bring in technology Australia currently doesnât have as well as potential source of investment to get any industry up and running.
EDIT: The ultimate proof in the pudding will be when the strategy comes out later in the year. âŠbut the messaging from Dr Finkel and that being released publically fout the working groups is very positive in relation to use snd exporting of Australiaâs renewable energy.
4 Likes
@phb, itâs all wonderful progress. My honest view point!
I trust Dr Finkel.
But when in the past has any government of either colour ever followed the advice of itâs experts?
Hydrogen as a fuel source is very accessible. The technology of the fuel cells and in vehicle management of the fuel is within the capabilities of some like a Toyota, at a cost?
Excuse my lack of optimism, given the view of the current Federal Govt on our national carbon emissions trajectory is opposite to the facts.
3 Likes
Det Cord burns so fast it seems like an explosion but it burns at a rate of about 6,400 m/s
Perhaps hydrogen is just burning at a rate that it creates an explosive effect 
3 Likes
It is now bigger than any government (ALP, LNP, Greens etcâŠState and/or Commonwealth). If Australia going alone, there would be reason for skepticism/cynicismâŠbut when collaborating with some of the largest world economies, it significantly changes the goal posts. It provides Australia with enormous opportunites if we get it right.
These other countries will have their own drivers, including meeting future energy needs and meeting their own CO2 reduction targetsâŠso trying to dupe more than just the constitiuents, will be near impossible.
It is also worth noting there is bipartisan support at both State and Commonwealth levelsâŠsomething not often seen.
1 Like
5 years old, but a decent read.
5 Likes
Perhaps the realisation here is to suggest one big difference between battery and hydrogen powered EVâs for the economy.
Battery powered EVâs from a consumer perspective can be largely a self managed economic investment. Owners have a choice to self charge, buy from the grid, or anyone else with a suitable source of electricity they are prepared to sell. Itâs all very independent, low cost investment and free enterprise small âlâ liberal. Any notion of taxing sunlight might be a step to far. Taxing EVâs by GPS mileage may not be such an easy step either, (although very fair on lower mileage road users).
In comparison, Hydrogen must have some appeal for big business, the established supply chain and even government?
Currently hydrogen production and compression has not been scaled commercially to a residential level. It may happen. Until then there are opportunities for large companies with petrochemical and gas production expertise to readily move onto all forms of hydrogen production. The disruption to the supply chain of hydrogen is minimal if transported in liquid form as ammonia, and the current system of filling stations is able to transition. Hydrogen potentially maintains the status quo. Even for governments the ability to tax each business from production to supply remains. There is the ability to tax the hydrogen at source or at sale, or both, (equivalent to royalties plus the excise).
Hydrogen largely retains the status quo, including as others note the ability to trade over long distances energy commodities.
For battery EVs the future will eventually deliver lighter, more compact and powerful batteries at a more competitive price. Petrochemical company conspiracies aside.
For hydrogen powered EVs the high upfront costs of their technology for safe storage, handling and fuel cells are also challenges. Itâs worth noting even fuel cell vehicles have batteries. At least in this instance.
Perhaps there is also an alignment between governments and other formidable interests?
5 Likes
There is often a rage, especially from Americans, about the numbers of different taxes as well as the amounts. In lieu of taxes we âenjoyâ fees.
I donât subscribe to conspiracies about why hydrogen might be more or less palatable than electric to segments of the economy, but at the end of the day the pollies will worry if they have to find more direct ways to fund public infrastructure and wear it at the polls. What is behind the curtains usually stays behind the curtains or can be put back there. When a âfeeâ is in oneâs face it stays there, as well as on the oppositions attack ads. That could well be the decider for political decisions in many jurisdictions.
3 Likes
Irrespective of the government revenue adjustments when comparing hydrogen and battery, the local employment opportunities would appear significantly different.
Short of Australia becoming a major battery manufacturer, a battery EV future might be largely one of imported technology, and a low replacement rate of the jobs lost from the current petroleum based economy.
With hydrogen the operation and maintenance of production, the distribution and vehicle servicing chains will be less effected through transition.
Even the manufacture and construction of hydrogen production and handling facilities is within the grasp of Australian capabilities. Although the last major LNG facilities were all largely manufactured OS and imported pre-assembled in large modules. Perhaps we will revert to a nation of wealthy landowners, because we still need somewhere to park all the equipment?
Government will be challenged which ever direction change takes. 
5 Likes
The hydrogen car will also maintain a service industry dedicated to keep the moving and not so moving parts of an ICE engine working as you noted. Oil for lubrication still very much a necessity at the moment so minor maintaining of an oil industry (though more or less can be replaced by synthetic oils).
In an article I was reading on economies (https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-is-rich-dumb-and-getting-dumber-20191007-p52y8i) we were compared as an economy to places like some very 3rd World countries.
"The enormous wealth generated by iron ore, coal, oil and gas masks, and probably contributes to, an economy that has failed to develop the industries needed to sustain its position among the top ranks of the developed world.
Put simply, Australia is rich and dumb, and getting dumber.
On the primary metric used in the database, an index of economic complexity, Australia fell from 57th to 93rd from 1995 to 2017, a decline that is accelerating. Australiaâs top trading partner, China, rose from 51st to 19th over the same timeframe."
Sad reflection of what we are doing with our potential. Why arenât we developing the alternative industries to take advantage of our resources rather than robbing the landscape to sell to others who are developing the new industries.
6 Likes
Certainly jumping on to the hydrogen pathway might put Australia near the forefront of development and adoption of H2 as a solution to reducing GHG emissions.
It would align more neatly with Japan as a partner, compared with a future tied to battery EVs. China appears to be the leader in the production of lithium batteries, PV panels and inverters. It has good reason to build a lower carbon future it can control, domestically and more widely?
Not sure of the scale of investment and commitment required, assuming that it is reasonable to expect other than a 100% foreign owned industry, if it were to develop.
2 Likes
Somthing else which may need to be considered is that hydrogen (H2) gas from water is not a mineral or energy resource (like oil, gas or petroleum products) under state government legislation. I expect that over time that the states will amend their legislation to include hydrogen as a resource/energy resource so that the taxpayer doesnât miss out on royalties from any future industry.
Such will ensure that any owners (local or foreign) pay their dues in relation to the export of H2.
3 Likes
Possible.
The water that falls from the sky, state governments have already captured through regulation. There is both a cost and market. Hydrogen as water is a resource, whether as overland flows that are captured, or through bore flows and licenses. It might become very expensive water?
Desalination is an alternative, but not low cost, until perhaps direct electrolysis of sea water becomes viable?
Interestingly, constitutionally, who has taxation rights over falling rain and sunshine. Yes we do need to get to a future economy, battery or hydrogen or both for that to be a real question?
P.S.
I have a large rock ready just in case it doesnât resolve itself amicably?
2 Likes
That is true but H2 isnât water. Currently H2 slips through the legislative netâŠfor example in Queensland currently under S6 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, water is excluded as being a mineral. Hydrogen gas doesnât appear in the Act Hydrogen gas (H2) could easily be included.
In Queensland under the Petroleum Act 1923. hydrogen sulphide is classed as petroleum product. Hydrogen as H2 is not included.
Currently H2 (which is no longer water but a gas created through the electrolysis of water along with O2) isnât defined as a resource in Queensland. A quick redrafting of the definition of a mineral (better option) or petroleum product (not a good fit) could be done for its inclusion (similar was done when Syngas became a product of processing of materials in Queensland). Alternatively a new Act could be written to include H2 gas.
1 Like
Not according to Japan?
Australian brown coal to zero carbon hydrogen for Japan. All down to us burying the carbon somewhere in Victoria!
2 Likes
Who knows what logic (or none) may be used when framing new taxes, however there is no logic in taxing H2 as a mineral.
The idea behind oil, gas and coal royalties (and all minerals) is that these nonrenewable resources are collectively owned by the people and so are administered on our behalf by the government. This is unlike some countries where the landholder owns the mineral rights under it, in Oz you do not. In Oz you can be dispossessed to allow developers to get to the resource under your land or forced to concede them access to dig it up even if you retain title. To be fair these provisions are rarely used because of the bad publicity that would be involved for both developer and government. Developers have much more subtle ways of getting you to quit and move on.
Although a fuel H2 is not a mineral or derived from one, nor is it nonrenewable, nor is it associated with any particular block(s) of title which exploration and mining licenses are. So if you are going to tax it you would have to invent a new rationale for it - assuming that come the day governments will feel the need to justify whatever they want to do.
1 Like
