Floating figures on hydrogen fuels hot-air brigade

JUDITH SLOAN
MARCH 9, 2019
The Australian
I’m not a fan of science fiction. But I’m not against a bit of blue-sky thinking on technologies of the ­future. So the government’s decision to allocate several million ­dollars to look at the potential of hydrogen as a fuel source of the ­future is fair enough.
Through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, $7.5 million has been allocated to a trial in western Sydney that will use renewable energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The hydrogen will be then injected into an existing gas network “in small amounts”. There are also several trials being conducted in the Latrobe Valley using brown coal as the source of the hydrogen.
It’s hard to object to these sorts of initiatives. They mirror other R&D projects on hydrogen production and use overseas. But let us be realistic: it’s not a story for ­tomorrow or next year or, indeed, the next decade.
While Chief Scientist Alan Finkel — remind me why we have a chief scientist — is very taken by the idea of hydrogen with its zero emissions at the point of use, he has unwisely put some figures on the potential for hydrogen in ­Australia. He claims we could have hydrogen exports worth $1.7 billion generating some 2800 jobs by 2030.
Sorry, Professor Finkel, these numbers are trivial. Our export coal industry alone currently generates over $40bn of income annual and supports more than 50,000 jobs. And let’s face it, the Hindenburg airship explosion in 1937 didn’t give hydrogen a good name; it’s been a long climb back.
So let’s take a look at the potential for hydrogen to become a significant source of energy here and in other countries. Most of us remember hydrogen as the first listed element in the periodic table. While hydrogen is everywhere, it can’t be conveniently accessed as a stand-alone gas or liquid. Energy-intensive processes are required to release the hydrogen.
There are essentially two choices: gasification (of coal or coal seam gas, for example) or electrolysis of water. The first process releases carbon dioxide as one of the by-products and is unlikely to garner support from environmentalists. It is also an expensive process because energy is required for the gasification process. Note that brown coal is a better source of ­hydrogen than black coal.
The second option requires clean water, and this is an issue in Australia (and elsewhere). A first, energy-intensive step requires the water to be purified. After that, electrolysis separates the hydrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby providing a source of hydrogen. The argument is made that renewable energy — wind and solar — can be used to power the electrolysis process.
There are two options for then transporting hydrogen: as pressurised gas using bespoke pipelines or as a cryogenic liquid. Both options are costly, requiring additional ­energy input.
If you are beginning to think that this all sounds very expensive, you wouldn’t be wrong. And let’s not forget that pesky second law of thermodynamics: “in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state”.
But we can give the hydrogen believers the benefit of the doubt for a moment and think about hydrogen as a zero-emissions (at the point of use) and storable energy source. Let’s even ignore the loss of energy involved in getting to this point and the carbon emissions embedded in the processes of sourcing the hydrogen.
But is it really surprising that hydrogen is so rarely used as a source of energy around the world? To be sure, there is some use made of hydrogen in the US, but it’s small beer. And there are a few experiments with hydrogen-powered buses and trains in Britain and Europe.
Japan is top of the pops when it comes to hydrogen use. The country is even bragging about staging a hydrogen-powered Olympic Games with hydrogen-powered Olympic torches. (It reminds me of the Victorian government’s description of Melbourne’s trams as solar powered. This doesn’t mean that the trams don’t run on cloudy days or at night. It’s virtual solar power, you must understand.)
How Japan uses hydrogen is to take its imported liquefied natural gas and deliver it to heat ­exchanges in houses and buildings to be converted into hydrogen. It works pretty well given the climate, but it is not zero emissions. What is potentially attractive to Japan, given its construction of a number of high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power stations, is to outsource some of these emissions.
So hydrogen created via electrolysis using renewable energy in Australia, say, might have some attraction to Japan, although price would be a key determinant of whether there will be serious commercial large-scale opportunities down the track. There is a real possibility that nothing much eventuates. But that’s fine as long as blue-sky thinking and research and development are not confused with definite development options and replacement of other energy sources. This is the trap that Bill Shorten has fallen into.
According to the Opposition Leader, who clearly regards himself as adept at picking winners, “hydrogen is an emerging industry that has huge potential to deliver significant economic, employment, energy and environmental benefits for Australia. Developing a hydrogen industry will deliver new opportunities for manufacturing, transport and electricity generation.
“We want regional Queensland to have good, secure blue-collar jobs for the future in existing and new industries.”
He has gone to Gladstone in Queensland, where a series of liquefied natural gas trains are currently located, and announced a “one billion dollar hydrogen development”. No ifs, no buts: there will be a hydrogen industry in Gladstone coming soon. And what’s more, the global hydrogen export market is expected to be worth $215bn worldwide by 2022, according to Shorten. That’s in three years’ time.
Of course, most Australians know what the appropriate response is to this sort of vacuous flag-waving: tell him he’s dreamin’.
Just in case you think I’m picking on Shorten here, let me quote from a learned US economics professor, Jeffrey Sachs, talking about the Green New Deal being proposed by newly elected Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“In the next decade, electricity generation will shift from coal and natural gas to wind, solar, hydro, and other zero-carbon technologies. Cars and trucks will shift from gasoline to electricity, using batteries or fuel cells (with hydrogen manufactured by electrolysis). Planes will use electricity for short flights and advanced zero-carbon fuels for longer flights. Buildings will be heated by electricity (such as heat pumps) rather than boilers and furnaces.”
Now that’s more science fiction than blue-sky thinking.