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?
I’m not sure if his head is in the clouds or up his a*** on this he wants vast amounts of government money but doesn’t seem to understand where the government gets the money from.
James Bull
Having worked in the association with the TOP two electrophysicists in the World ,DR Barry Izard, and DR Peter Colahal I can state first hand that these solar PV shills are complete morons and frauds.
First the issue of the source of the heat necessary to produce a wafer of silicon.
While working for the USA’s largest monolythic silicon ingot manufacturer in 1995 the Motorola Company in Scottsdale AZ was able to produce silicon substrate material at a cost of 1 billion per acre 99% of that cost was energy.
While while working with Aerospace industrial coatings I learned that the transparent indium layer of PV oxidizes while exposed to UV light at a rate of 100% over 8 years.
During the period of time that a solar cell produces usable energy only 70.7% of the energy required to make the cell is recoverable.
So the actual cost of producing 1KW of electricity using solar PV was about 4.81 USD.
The cost of producing 1KW of Wind energy is around 14USD.
The cost of producing 1KW of geothermal is around 6 USD.
The cost of producing 1KW of wave is around 23 USD
The cost of producing 1KW of Nuclear is around .0015 USD
The cost of producing 1KW of Petro chemical is around .005 USD
Second Like trash dumps environmentally ill people ignore the pollution when they can shift it to someone else.
The advent of seemingly cheap silicon has been due to the disregard for safety and environment in the use of very dirty coal in China to power the ingot ovens.
The idea of hydrogen economy was introduced publicly by GW Bush at that time many of us actually pursued this dead end path.
The two primary issues with hydrogen energy are storage and conversion.
Apollo energy went bankrupt perfecting a platinum free fuel cell.
The issue with fuel cells is that they are not primary energy sources like an A battery they are secondary energy sources and subject to a alpha gain never producing more energy than required to make the hydrogen fuel.
Third looking at electrolysis itself I developed titanium ceramic anodes and low temperature water crackers as well as carboxal and methane crackers.
There is a wall dead stop in the theoretical electrolysis cell of 1.4KW per mole of gas the gas is both H2 and O2. The theory states that dissociation of water is at 1.23V actual measured it is at 1.48V.
Once the water is cracker molecular sieve will allow hydrogen to pass retaining O2.
The storage of hydrogen is extremely problematic in practical use Carbon fiber proved to be ineffective.
We even pursued basalt and other fibers to construct tanks at great loss of capitol.
For example a fuel cell drayage truck outfitted with CNG tanks converted to hydrogen at the same pressure was reduced in refueling period from 400 miles to 40 miles.
The cost of the truck conversion was 380K in 2004 the initial cost of CNG construction was 1.3M The refueling station was another 500K USD.
So the end result of the unicorn fart truck was 2.2 million for 40 miles daily transport.
The energy cost for 40 Miles was 3600 USD per day.
About the pollution CO2 they claim as a green house gas but it is not teh worst one Di-hydrogen Oxide is 14 times more reflective of heat and is the primary climate driver on this planet. At sea level the fallout of di-hydrogen oxide a end product of hydrogen combustion will drop the temperature to 72 degrees. the up welling of this dangerous solvent from our oceans is the causal mechanism of all hurricanes.
The dream of using hydrogen for fuel is a pipe dream of crack smokers.
I am sure of this having spent 20 years of my life working on this very challenge.
In my experience working for Darpa, NASA ,Motorola, GM. Apollo, HBA, Panda, DIA and many others including my own companies I have found that the sane approach to energy is each to it’s benefit each to it’s market. Diesel generators do not work at 14K feet so solar is best option. At sea level Gasoline is king, For large grid coal is best.I have not found a single location or use for wind other than pumping water.
Letting academics try and create policy is like asking a virgin to direct a porn video.
Theory is seldom beneficial to the outcome of production.
Lastly there is a standard formula still in use today concerning fuel consumption of steam powered engines that dictates that only 10% of available energy can be drawn from fossil fuels. GE has been producing an engine that is 67% efficient for more than 30 years.
Reminds me of:
“You’re losing $1 per item you sell”
“That’s ok I’ll make it up in volume”
Escape of hydrogen leads to a breakdown of the ozone layer
“Economics will drive the transition.” Wonderful news, cancel COP26, no need for government mandates, carbon taxes, forced closures of coal stations, people will choose EVs etc. Or is the Professor tilting at windmills?
Well Big Oil has had enough of their nonsense and is beginning to tell it like it is-
Shell’s van Beurden in a LinkedIn post on Friday, echoing previous comments by BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney, said oil companies alone could not control demand for fossil fuels.
“Let’s say Shell switched the products we sell overnight. Instead of petrol and diesel, motorists at our service stations could only get hydrogen, or recharge their electric cars. It wouldn’t make people buy a hydrogen or battery electric car. They would simply drive down the road and fill up at one of our competitors,” van Beurden said.
Big oil says up to governments at climate talks to rein in demand (msn.com)
This guy never even managed a lemonade stand, so how is he an expert on such a huge and pointless undertaking?
Wise words from Milton.