The best example of the addiction the Morrison Govt has to coal is in the production of hydrogen as a green fuel. This will allow truckers to use a fuel that can be distributed like diesel but burns without emissions.
There are broadly 2 ways of producing hydrogen: using electricity or coal-fired power to provide the energy to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. The former can be green if the electricity is produced from solar or other green power but coal is decidedly dirty.
Australian scientists have made a huge leap forward in the efficiency of electrolysers: they've produced 95% efficiency compared to 75% previously: Australian researchers claim ‘giant leap’ in technology to produce affordable renewable hydrogen, The Guardian. Green hydrogen is therefore on track to be competitive with coal-fired hydrogen production by 2025 with costs of under $2 per kilo.
But there's no surprise that the Morrison Govt sees coal-fired hydrogen production as its gift to addressing climate change even though it's dependent on "clean coal" solutions that may be pie in the sky: Coal-based liquid hydrogen pivotal for green energy? The experts doubt it, The Guardian.
If you want to make money, just float a proposal to the Morrison Govt that includes the words "clean coal". Then you just have to make sure you won't be crushed under all of the money that the Govt will give you so it can burnish its climate credentials.
There are broadly 2 ways of producing hydrogen: using electricity or coal-fired power to provide the energy to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. The former can be green if the electricity is produced from solar or other green power but coal is decidedly dirty.
Australian scientists have made a huge leap forward in the efficiency of electrolysers: they've produced 95% efficiency compared to 75% previously: Australian researchers claim ‘giant leap’ in technology to produce affordable renewable hydrogen, The Guardian. Green hydrogen is therefore on track to be competitive with coal-fired hydrogen production by 2025 with costs of under $2 per kilo.
But there's no surprise that the Morrison Govt sees coal-fired hydrogen production as its gift to addressing climate change even though it's dependent on "clean coal" solutions that may be pie in the sky: Coal-based liquid hydrogen pivotal for green energy? The experts doubt it, The Guardian.
Quote:A world-first shipment of liquid hydrogen from Australia was declared momentous – a pivotal moment as the world clambers for clean liquid fuels to bring global greenhouse gas emissions to zero.
Prime minister Scott Morrison said the consignment – loaded on to a purpose-built Japanese ship at the Port of Hastings in Victoria – marked the beginning of a new clean energy export industry for Australia.
Despite the celebratory fanfare and two government ministers at the port for a photo-op, the reality is something different.
Experts say the climate credentials of the technology being used to produce the hydrogen – using brown coal – are highly questionable.
“The project’s current configuration is not clean. In fact, it is incredibly dirty,” said Kobad Bhavnagri, head of industrial decarbonisation at Bloomberg NEF.
Quote:To bring emissions down, HESC says a commercial operation would capture CO2 released during one of the stages of production (the gasification phase carried out in the Latrobe Valley) and then use the Victorian government’s CarbonNet project to store the CO2.
But the CarbonNet project – which is targeting potential geological formations off the Victorian coast – doesn’t yet exist and, if it does go ahead, the Victorian government says it won’t start operating until the end of this decade.
All of this raises the prospect of coal-based hydrogen – which the Morrison government is happy to describe as “clean” – hitting a global market at a time when some analysts believe it will be already priced out by zero-emissions hydrogen derived from renewable energy.
Bhavnagri told Temperature Check he doubts using coal to make hydrogen could have any commercial success.
He said assuming the project could capture and store a significant amount of CO2, the carbon footprint of the hydrogen would still be higher than producing hydrogen from gas with CCS and “much higher than producing it from renewables”.
“If it’s more complex and more costly and more polluting than making hydrogen from renewables, why would you do it?”
If you want to make money, just float a proposal to the Morrison Govt that includes the words "clean coal". Then you just have to make sure you won't be crushed under all of the money that the Govt will give you so it can burnish its climate credentials.