Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Has hydrogen’s time arrived?

By Tom Biegler - posted Thursday, 3 March 2022


Some 55 years ago, as I set out on my years of research on the catalytic activity of platinum electrodes, I watched my first bubbles of electrolytic hydrogen form on that beautiful metal. A keen hydrogen watcher ever since, I've watched it getting hot, and cooling down again, more than once. Right now it's hot. And to me that's a worry. Here's why.

Green hydrogen will be a huge new industry, they say. In February 2022 one report describes "a frenzy of interest in (Andrew Forrest's) plans to turn the iron ore company he founded into a global energy giant capable of producing 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen a year by 2030".

Forrest's Fortescue Future Industries FFI, a subsidiary of the giant iron ore miner Fortescue Metals Group, says it's "taking a global leadership position in the renewable energy and green products industry by harnessing the world's renewable energy resources to produce renewable electricity, green hydrogen and other green industrial products such as green ammonia and green iron."

Advertisement

On the political front Australia's Federal and State Governments have a joint National Hydrogen Strategy with "a vision for a clean, innovative, safe and competitive hydrogen industry that benefits all Australians and is a major global player by 2030".The Feds say they're now investing $1.4 billion in building a green hydrogen industry.

Only weeks ago FederalOpposition leader Anthony Albanese, normally an enemy of fossil fuels, announced his Labor party's support for a 750 MW gas-fired power station atKurri KurriNSW, on condition that it runs on 30% green hydrogenby 2030, rising to 100% soon after.

Likewise, Squadron Energy, with ownership connections to Andrew Forrest and FFI, proposes a 660 MW dual-fuel (natural gas and green hydrogen) combined cycle gas turbine generator at Port Kembla NSW, running on 100% hydrogen by 2030.

This is a small sample of theproliferation in Australia of new hydrogen ventures and supporting organisations, both public and private. It is a global phenomenon. Hydrogen enthusiasm is reaching fever pitch, again.

Is this a healthy environment for sound policy development and business decision making? Let's have a closer look.

Hydrogen – what it is: Hydrogen is a gas, a chemical element contributing at least one atom to every basic molecule of importance in human existence – water, fossil fuels, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, etc. Hydrogen gas burns, just like the common fuels. But it boasts one big chemical advantage – the only combustion product is water. There's no carbon dioxide, the product nobody wants, as left behind by other fuels.

Advertisement

Already an industrial gas, about 75 million tonnes of hydrogen are used annually across the globe. About 95% of that is made from natural gas, which is mainly methane CH4. It's those four hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom that make methane such a good feedstock for hydrogen. Industrial hydrogen's main uses are in the petroleum refining, explosives and fertiliser industries. There are many other smaller but still vital uses.

Hydrogen – what it isn't: A common and dangerous misconception is that hydrogen is a "source of energy". It is difficult to know the extent to which that rookie error contributes to hydrogen's popular reputation. The fact is that hydrogen does not exist naturally. It cannot be a "source" of anything, especially energy. Every molecule of hydrogen used in the world is manufactured. That process uses energy. All of the energy content of today's hydrogen originated elsewhere.

What then is the value proposition underlying the hydrogen frenzy? This important question has no simple answer. Let's return to it after outlining some history.

1975 is a useful starting point. That's the year of publication of a hefty book by Professor J O'M. Bockris, Energy the Solar-Hydrogen Alternative. Bockris was an internationally renowned electrochemist with a reputation made in the UK and USA. In 1975 he was here in Adelaide heading Flinders University's Institute of Solar and Electrochemical Energy Conversion.

Today that label would connect his Institute with climate change. Bockris had a different agenda, fossil fuel exhaustion. He did appreciate the value of both solar and nuclear as clean energy but mainly saw the solar/hydrogen combination as a way of replacing fossil fuels. Australia's renowned solar resource would provide primary energy as electricity. That electricity would be used in generating hydrogen by the process of electrolysis. The hydrogen could then be stored, distributed and used like fossil fuels. One of those uses would be conversion back to electricity.

With these ideas Bockris was advocating a worldwide solar-hydrogen economy. His vision and contagious enthusiasm became widely respected. Nearly 50 years later one can see that his inspiration did not gain the traction he sought but it definitely signalled a first wave of hydrogen interest.

A second wave started in the USA in the mid-1990s. Politically driven it was aimed at ending US transportation dependence on imported oil. That aim seemed technically feasible but hydrogen was expensive. Reducing its cost became the mission of a large US government program. One of its leaders, Joseph J Romm, published The Hype about Hydrogen in 2005. The title captures the mood of the times. It's also a spoiler alert. The program faded away.

However the second wave wasn't finished. In 2003 President George W Bush announced a $1.2 billion initiative for developing clean hydrogen-powered automobiles. Ford had already trialled a hydrogen-powered production model sedan and was promoting its Model U concept hydrogen-fuelled car. BMW was another developer of hydrogen-powered cars.

Hydrogen fuel cells were also of interest for powering electric vehicles. Fuel cells are like batteries except that their electrochemically active ingredients can be fed continuously; fuel cells are recharged with fuels rather than electricity. Though known for over a century, fuel cells started their serious development only around 1960 as part of the US space program. Transportation applications followed. Buses were an early target but over the years steady progress in fuel cell technology has enabled several car manufacturers to produce or trial fuel-cell powered electric passenger cars. Growth will call for future expansion of hydrogen refuelling outlets.

The current burst of hydrogen excitement amounts to a third wave. It has a fresh focus, the newly-branded product Green Hydrogen.While chemically identical to the "old" 75 million tonnes/year natural gas-based "grey" hydrogen, Green Hydrogen is made with renewable energy and zero carbon emissions. That's its critical feature, enabling it to spawn a new range of clean products and processes. Hence a value proposition like:

Green Hydrogen presents the opportunity to create new industries involving unlimited quantities of globally tradeable renewable energy and green products with a wide range of valuable industrial applications, all harnessing Australia's solar and wind energy resources.

There are already some specific targets. Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel and environmental activist group WWF Australia both suggest a green hydrogen export industry that could eventually match or exceed present exports of liquefied natural gas. They estimate this would require clean electricity generation around seven or eight times Australia's present total national electricity output.

How credible is the Green Hydrogen vision? Is hydrogen frenzy perhaps distorting judgements? What does hydrogen's history tell us? It certainly suggests that hydrogen can induce unrealistic expectations. However, some signs are encouraging. For one, Australia is not alone in its Green Hydrogen ambition. Goldman Sachs projects a global hydrogen market of $1.4 trillion by 2050 with some 80 GW of installed hydrogen electrolysis capacity by 2030. Germany suggests it will have 108-350 GW renewables devoted to hydrogen electrolysis by 2050. Bavaria alone aims to spend 1 billion euros on hydrogen projects in the next few years.

So there are grand plans. But right now commercial production of Green Hydrogen is zero.

Some advocates seem to think that producing hydrogen by electrolysis will make it cheaper than the present product "grey hydrogen" made from natural gas. That looks improbable. More likely Green Hydrogen will be costlier. However by rights it should be a more valuable product and if it can command a higher price it might still be commercially viable.

There is a more serious concern for viability. Early on in the second wave, electrochemists were pointing out that the proposed applications of hydrogen for transportation would incur large energy losses. Thus a typical commercial hydrogen electrolyser had an efficiency of around 50%, as measured by energy consumption in relation to the theoretical requirement. Similarly the efficiency of electricity generation using hydrogen fuel, whether by combustion engine or fuel cell, was also reckoned to be around 50%. So in that case overall efficiency would only be 25%. Additional efficiency losses occur when processes like compression and liquefaction of hydrogen are taken into account.

These numbers meant that in the sequence electricity→hydrogen→electricity 75% of the initial electrical energy was lost (as heat). The conclusion then was that, at least for transportation, it was far preferable to use "raw" electricity to charge a battery electric vehicle than to rely on hydrogen as an energy intermediary.

On the matter of efficiency it's worth noting that there's always debate about how to express efficiencies of energy conversion devices where electrical and chemical energies are being compared. However with the kind of sequence shown above there is no argument; efficiency is a ratio of two electrical energy quantities, out and in. The ratio is a dimensionless number, a true efficiency.

Over time there has naturally been progress in raising these efficiencies. For example PEM electrolysers are said to run at efficiencies up to around 70%. The point is that efficiency is an important consideration in analysing any proposal involving hydrogen, a crucial parameter for industrial success. At present it seems ignored.

Efficiencies have to be measured and optimised in real plants, purpose-engineered and tested at successively increasing scales. Energy intermittency with solar and wind sources might pose special problems for Green Hydrogen production. Proper piloting and demonstration must be carried out. Shortcuts in process development engineering will add risks.

It's clear that energy losses in Green Hydrogen business models must be expected. They may well exceed 60%, which means that of the electrical energy going into Green Hydrogen only some 40%, and perhaps less, would appear in the final product. Is the impact of such losses on business viability being examined in the current Green Hydrogen frenzy? If so it's hard to spot.

Green Hydrogen businesses are not risk-free. Should governments take on any of that risk or should it all be borne by private investors? That needs explicit consideration. Also governments ought to be aware of the political dangers they face with involvement in ventures that look like they could squander a substantial fraction of the clean energy they consume. Ordinary consumers will no doubt like the idea of getting hold of electrical energy so cheap that their government doesn't mind wasting it.

Has hydrogen's time arrived? Perhaps, but it will be interesting to keep watching.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Dr Tom Biegler was a research electrochemist before becoming Chief of CSIRO Division of Mineral Chemistry.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Tom Biegler was a research electrochemist before becoming Chief of CSIRO Division of Mineral Chemistry. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tom Biegler

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy