Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to John Mathews, Professor Emeritus of Macquarie Business School, green hydrogen will be cheaper than fossil fuel when the process is scaled up with billions of dollars of government money. Of course the money must not be seen as a cost burden for ordinary people.
Australia’s clean hydrogen revolution is a path to prosperity – but it must be powered by renewable energy
October 27, 2021 6.16am AEDT
John Mathews
Professor Emeritus, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie UniversityDays out from the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, the Morrison government on Tuesday announced a “practically achievable” path to reaching its new target of net-zero emissions by 2050.
As expected, the government will pursue a “technology not taxes” approach – eschewing policies such as a carbon price in favour of technological solutions to reduce emissions. Developing Australia’s fledgling hydrogen industry is a central plank in the plan.
This technological shift should not be seen as a cost burden for Australia. Yes, major transformation in industry is needed as it moves away from conventional fossil-fuelled processes. But this green industrial revolution is a potential source of great profit and prosperity – a fact Australia’s business sector has already recognised.
Acting quickly, and powering the shift with renewable energy, means Australia can be a world leader in green hydrogen technology and exports, particular to Asia.
…
To bring down the cost of green hydrogen, it must be manufactured at scale. This is consistent with a vision of a global green shift in which clean forms of energy and production become so competitive they displace incumbent fossil fuel industries.
…
Economics will drive the transition. The costs of green hydrogen will likely outmatch the costs of oil and gas, and so become the inputs of choice in making green fertilisers, green steel, green cement and fuel for heavy vehicles such as trucks and ships.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/australias-clean-hydrogen-revolution-is-a-path-to-prosperity-but-it-must-be-powered-by-renewable-energy-169832
Professor Emeritus John Mathews appears to be suggesting that spending billions of dollars to obtain a commodity which is, at best, no different from the commodity we already have, is a good plan which does not add to our cost burden.
I used to train fresh computer science graduates. As the contractor I got the jobs nobody else wanted. I didn’t mind, I enjoy teaching people.
Every one of the new trainees needed to be extensively de-programmed, their professors had sent them into their first industry job with their heads stuffed full of utter nonsense. It usually only took a few weeks to carefully explain, with examples, why half of what they had learned was wrong, and set them on the path to becoming productive junior software developers.
I wonder if people who train fresh business school graduates in their first job have a similar experience?
One of my wife’s friend said her granddaughter came home from college after her first session and she came back a flaming liberal refusing to listen to any other view. Evidently it does not take long to convert.
My daughter calls us from college often to vent. In her intro sociology class (core curriculum, not something she wants to take) they were just told that they should spell ‘Black’ with a capital B, but ‘white’ should be lower case because to do otherwise would be white supremacist.
I think we’ve inoculated her well, but I told her I would disown her if she gets better than a ‘B’ in that class.
Sure, we lose money on every sale but make it up on volume.
Yeah and as long as you convince enough greentard investors you are buying market share you can keep it going for a while. The trick then is to work out how to siphon off cash and get out before it all hits the wall.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, let me catch my breath. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ok, I think I cn finish my tea and go to bed now. No, I am lying! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
That siren-song has been used so many times before it has become a cliché, Asian countries are more that capable of looking after their own interests without any ‘help’ from Australia.
No matter what the theory behind the green technology, burning more $Green$ now will make it a reliable replacement for what is already reliable.
To make the green dream economical, Government just needs to make what is already economical (and reliable) artificially more expensive.
Anyone who believes you can make green hydrogen steel or cement has never been to a steel mill or a cement kiln. It is amazing how many PhDs are fools; not even “book smart”.
Rud Istvan,
Do you have info / numbers on this question? If we go to net zero, how long is it before the carbon cycle and the calcium carbonate cycle sequester enough CO2 to start us back toward the deadly 180 ppm? And then life on earth really is doomed.
Earliest estimate ever published in peer review is 70 years to get back to 350ppm from today. So rough ball park would be 200 years to get to that.
Read Dr. Patrick Moore’s speech to the GWPF:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/28155/
Thank you BobM. That is an excellent presentation that wraps up a lot of important concepts in a simple way. Itneeds to be seen by more of those people who really never hear the encompassing ideas.
These idiots select energy systems the way Hollywood icons select handbags and watches. Price is no concern – rather the priority is that the product be hideously expensive and rare to the point of being totally irrelevant to real life.
They don’t want price to be of any concerned, and that’s why there are no real cost estimates.
Statements such as his make your realise just how far the intellectual standards of our learning institutions have fallen. What the professor is suggesting is that by subsidising the overseas purchase of $billions of solar panels to convert hydrogen from water, and then subsidising the hydrogen output by further $billions, we can make the hydrogen cheap enough for people in Asia to consider purchasing the product and thus creating a sustainable industry. In other words, you lose large amounts of money twice to make a much smaller $ sale and this is sound economics.
The only part missing is to use all of the hydrogen to power the ship that delivers it across the other side of the globe.
If it is really a cheaper source of energy then fossil fuels then eventually it will take over the market without the need for any government subsidies.
“Capitalism” is the leftist description of free enterprise, free markets.
Read this great book on the subject on why fossil fuels are really the only option.
The moral case for fossil fuels
Regarding fresh business school graduates, I was once told by a member of the P&G board that they liked to hire engineers over MBAs because they could teach an engineer everything but couldn’t teach an MBA anything.
Professor Emeritus John Mathews must be smoking some excellent weed to make those completely evidence-free and baseless claims.
Green = red
Remember the translation that went
“E” = “without” “meritus” = “merit”?
The prof is in the business of stealing tax payers hard earned cash.
If it is a money maker,he and all his wealthy colleagues in academia could invest for an even bigger pension pot!
ha ha … they are easy … BA’s/Mba’s, they have no knowledge to train out of them … just a degree … may as well hire a high school grad …
From the article: “As expected, the government will pursue a “technology not taxes” approach – eschewing policies such as a carbon price in favour of technological solutions to reduce emissions.”
That’s good. Taxing Carbon Dioxide is a really stupid idea.
From the article: “Developing Australia’s fledgling hydrogen industry is a central plank in the plan.”
There’s the fly in the ointment.
The Title‘Professor’ means very little these days. This fellow Mathews obviously has little concept of the Thermodynamic Laws.
Tell Asia that perfessor as they’re rolling on the ground laughing at you and all the numpties jetting in to COP26-
COP26 aims to banish coal. Asia is building hundreds of power plants to burn it (msn.com)
“This is consistent with a
visionDREAM of a global green shift in which clean forms of energy and production become so competitive they displace incumbent fossil fuel industries.”Yeah China isn’t buying the story line they have just announced they intend to increase coal use over the next 4 years and build 230 new power stations but will still peak at 2030 🙂
Interesting timing right on the eve of COP26, everyone might as well not bother turning up because there reduction pledges will be dwarfed by that increase.
Pay me a billion dollars and I’ll work for you for free
These days fresh-faced graduates will need de-woking.
“Hydrogen from Green Energy Electrolysers is Cheaper than Fossil Fuel”
Define “cheaper”, please.
I see lithium battery EV prices have plumbed the bottom-
the initial cost gains from large scale battery production have been achieved with the construction of gigafactories, said Benchmark Mineral Intelligence (BMI) Chief Executive Simon Moores.
Now costs of raw materials, particularly lithium, are rising and feeding into battery costs, he added.
High lithium costs start to feed into prices of China EV batteries -BMI (msn.com)
There may be hope for the hydrogen subsidy miners yet within the stacked deck.
Everything is cheap if you ignore the infrastructure costs!