The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

We can import the technical skilled people from elsewhere at any time, and that's if and when we really need them.

Great, so do away with universities and tech colleges and just let local kids have jobs like making beds in hotels or serving coffee in cafes.

A lot cheaper , right ?

And what if covid is here to stay ? We rely on imported labour and risk the virus getting away again.

 

[sptrawler]

Unfortunately our federal government's National Hydrogen Strategy mostly pays lip service to the idea and does little else, while the heavy lifting will be done by the Twiggy Forrests of the world, plus our States.

Interesting comments Rob, how much money have Victoria and NSW put in for this heavy lifting you talk about? To get rid of their coal fired power stations.
They have certainly talked the talk, which seems to be the way today, talk up a storm and do sod all.

The Feds on the other hand are spending $10billion on Snowy 2.0.
The NSW to S.A interconnect, the Federal Government is stumping up a half a billion dollars in loans and direct funding, S.A is putting in $50m Transgrid is stumping up the rest
.The Marinus HV link to Tasmania, is being funded by Tasnetworks and the Federal Government.

Victoria in 2020 said they are going to spend $1.6billion on renewable energy hubs, but I can't find any actual projects, that are currently underway.
NSW recently announced they will spend $380million over the next four years, to unlock private renewable spending.

So I really can't see where you are building your narrative from, the only sector of Government spending big amounts of money to support renewables, is the Federal Government.
Sounds a bit like one of your anti Government fairy tales, they actually seem to be the only ones doing much, your suggested heavy lifters appear to be the lip service mob IMO.

 

[IFocus]

Interesting comments Rob, how much money have Victoria and NSW put in for this heavy lifting you talk about? To get rid of their coal fired power stations.
They have certainly talked the talk, which seems to be the way today, talk up a storm and do sod all.

The Feds on the other hand are spending $10billion on Snowy 2.0.
The NSW to S.A interconnect, the Federal Government is stumping up a half a billion dollars in loans and direct funding, S.A is putting in $50m Transgrid is stumping up the rest
.The Marinus HV link to Tasmania, is being funded by Tasnetworks and the Federal Government.

Victoria in 2020 said they are going to spend $1.6billion on renewable energy hubs, but I can't find any actual projects, that are currently underway.
NSW recently announced they will spend $380million over the next four years, to unlock private renewable spending.

So I really can't see where you are building your narrative from, the only sector of Government spending big amounts of money to support renewables, is the Federal Government.
Sounds a bit like one of your anti Government fairy tales, they actually seem to be the only ones doing much, your suggested heavy lifters appear to be the lip service mob IMO.

NSW treasurer was on insiders today and basically trashed the federal governments lack of movement I think he said they (NSW) were going to pony up $3bil as starters and had serious targets for reductions sounded very aggressive about the whole deal and the NSW Nats were on board.

He actually spoke very well unlike the bumbling incoherent BS that gets served up daily by the Federal government.

 

[sptrawler]

NSW treasurer was on insiders today and basically trashed the federal governments lack of movement I think he said they (NSW) were going to pony up $3bil as starters and had serious targets for reductions sounded very aggressive about the whole deal and the NSW Nats were on board.

He actually spoke very well unlike the bumbling incoherent BS that gets served up daily by the Federal government.

That is exactly what needs to happen, NSW is in control of their power stations, same as W.A is in charge of ours, as Rumpy said State Governments were pushed into privatisation but the States still have the say with them and they took the money from the privatisation.
I don't know where he gets $3billion from, he only allocated $350 million over 4 years in his budget, but hey as long as he talks the talk.

The Feds own the Snowy and are doing things, if I was the Feds I'd congratulate NSW and tell them to get on with it, rather than waiting for the Australian taxpayers in W.A, Tassie, N.T, etc to fix their mess.

In W.A we had a $5billion surplus, hopefully we are doing things with our electricity system, I'm sure we are, because eventually blaming the Feds and previous Governments for everything is going to wear thin.
As a Premier and a State, you can't take the accolades for telling the Feds to FFk off, when your on a winner like covid, but then blame the Feds when you have a difficult problem like trying to change your complete electrical system and keep it reliable.

It goes back to, you can fool all the people some of the time, but not all of the people, all of the time.

As has been shown with covid the States have a lot of autonomy and trying to hide behind the FEDs on the hard calls, is going to be a hard sell IMO.
When McGowan said W.A is committed to net zero by 2050 and a reporter said how are you going to that when you are letting Woodside expand, he got very narky.
But none of the media have followed it up, why? well we all know the answer to that, you can only blame one person.

Having said that, it will be interesting to hear what the Feds narrative is now that the Nationals have fallen into line, interesting six months ahead IMO.
I hope Albo is on his game, he didn't react well today when questioned about their plans regarding net zero, he said we will wait until the Glasgow conference before deciding.
That doesn't sound decisive to me, actually it sounds as though they have about as much clue, as the coalition has..

Nationals accept net zero target by 2050

After a week of negotiations, Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce told Prime Minister Scott Morrison of the outcome shortly after a meeting of the Nationals party room ended on Sunday.

www.smh.com.au

From the articel:
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese said all the states agreed with Mr Kean’s position.

“It’s as if the federal government’s isolated from the shift that’s happened, the shift from the business community, the shift from farmers, the shift from state and territory governments,” he said.

However, he wouldn’t commit Labor to any specific increase to the 2030 target, saying the party would settle its policy depending on what happened in Glasgow.

 

[sptrawler]

NSW treasurer was on insiders today and basically trashed the federal governments lack of movement I think he said they (NSW) were going to pony up $3bil as starters and had serious targets for reductions sounded very aggressive about the whole deal and the NSW Nats were on board.

He actually spoke very well unlike the bumbling incoherent BS that gets served up daily by the Federal government.

I guess we can look to McGowan and W.A, to actually put a bit of perspective and reality into this whole debate, as we both agree he is no muppet.
But I didn't hear any of the climate change ranters and chanters backing Kirrup's vision, because people actually do know what is realistic, as opposed to political vitriol.
Also how the Feds fit in to this, or drive this, is actually beyond me, maybe @IFocus you can enlighten me?
I would have thought as I've shown below, the State has a plan and they will apply to the Feds for funding assistance, you and rederob seem to be suggesting the Feds should be directing the State how to do it, that IMO is ludicrous and makes no sense whatsoever IMO.

Coal plants to close by 2025 under ambitious renewable energy plan from WA Liberals

The Opposition unveils a plan ahead of the WA election for a net zero carbon emissions electricity system by 2030, with coal-fired power stations to be closed within four years.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:
Liberal Kirkup government plans to close all publicly owned coal-fired power stations by 2025 as part of the "biggest jobs, renewable energy and export project in the nation", meaning Muja and Collie would shut within four years.
WA Liberal leader Zak Kirkup said the plan was the largest renewable energy project in Australia's history, with estimates of $400 million being injected by a Liberal government alongside private investments.

"The New Energy Jobs plan will help create tens of thousands of jobs right here in WA," he said.
"We'll bring back manufacturing and help create a renewable energy future, not only for our state but for the rest of the country.

"It will make sure we reduce power bills, it'll make sure the state government has a net zero emissions target that is ambitious and it is bold, but it underpins where WA needs to be for the decades to come."
Under the energy plan, WA would have a net zero carbon emissions electricity system by 2030, with all state-owned coal-fired power stations to be closed by 2025.

Central to the policy is a $9 billion, 4,500 megawatt energy project to convert water into hydrogen for export using solar and wind, and a 1,500 megawatt solar and wind energy project in the state's Mid West that would provide electricity to Perth, the Wheatbelt, the Goldfields and the South West.
He said WA could afford to be more ambitious with its energy targets than other states and territories.

"New South Wales obviously doesn't have the vast resources, the vast opportunity like WA does to really capitalise on those energy projects," Mr Kirkup said.

"That's why we can be more ambitious, because WA has that natural advantage."

Labor slams plan​

WA Premier Mark McGowan said the Liberal policy could not be believed or trusted, and the public should "be very fearful" about the reality of the proposal.
Mr McGowan said the timeframe for the plan was not achievable.

"But in any event, should the policies that they announced ... be implemented, all it would mean is many, many billions of extra debt, huge increase in family power bills, rolling blackouts across the state and huge job losses," he said.

Australian Energy Council chief executive Sarah McNamara agreed the plan was unrealistic.

"The WA Liberals' plan appears very ambitious in terms of its pace in the 2020s," Ms McNamara said.

"The Whole of System Plan prepared by the WA government already recognises many technical challenges with integrating renewables at the rate expected from present settings, and the rate proposed here would open many new issues.

"Critical to a successful transition will be our ability to balance the competing principles of affordability, sustainability, and reliability to ensure that the pace of change is in the best interests of customers."



W.A Labor, 'Whole of system plan'.

Media statements | Western Australian Government

Media statements

www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au

Also W.A's plan for a brighter energy future.

Brighter Energy Future

Working together for a brighter energy future in Western Australia.

www.brighterenergyfuture.wa.gov.au

 

[Smurf1976]

We can import the technical skilled people from elsewhere at any time, and that's if and when we really need them.

Thing is though, that goes for anything.

Accountants, managers, CEO's, politicians, lawyers, dentists, doctors, plumbers, electricians, engineers, concreters, truck drivers.....

All can be employed on a "pay for service" basis if you really need them.

Trouble is, doing that means you always get someone who whilst probably competent as such, has zero knowledge of situation specific detail. For mowing the lawn that probably won't matter and it also won't matter if they're designing something new from scratch and you retain the same team through to completion.

Where it really does matter is with any existing technical thing. Having a rotating door of staff is at best inefficient, at worst it's when wrong assumptions are made and bad things happen.

When it comes to technical things, there's a huge value in having people who just know all about the equipment they're employed to operate and maintain. If it doesn't sound quite right, if a reading is 1% away from where they expect it to be, if the vibration they can feel through their feet feels different to normal and so on well someone who works on that plant all day every day will spot it, know the likely causes and proceed to investigate whereas to someone without that knowledge won't pick up those changes and thinks it's all OK until suddenly it goes very wrong.

Much the same as a patient can know for sure that something's wrong, that their body isn't quite right, despite their doctor seeing no obvious problem. Experience tells you what's normal and if reality doesn't match well then something is going on and it's very wise to find out what that is ASAP.

The alternative is wait until it breaks. No problem if it's minor, big problem if doing so causes a disaster. Even more embarrassing if it happens more than once, at the same site, costing ~$100 million each time after management intentionally purged out experienced staff. No I wasn't involved in any way for the record but I have contacts there.

The environmental damage, economic damage, disruption to the public and business you mention have very little to do with technical skills.

I'll simply say that I'm aware of several examples where that isn't the case. Things which cost serious $ or which resulted in loss of human life.

Various incidents in power stations, the oil and gas industry, theme parks, chemical manufacturing plants, hospitals, roads, hotel quarantine and so on all come to mind.

Common element in all of them is that technical skill wasn't present (either at all or in the required volume) or was overridden in authority by someone lacking relevant experience or qualifications. These things just should not have occurred, they come down to cost cutting, politics, game playing, placing short term goals ahead of the long term (CEO bonuses, politicians being re-elected as the drivers there) and so on.

Cost to the community? Massive.

In the context of energy supply well the debate largely wouldn't exist if we had a technical focus to it all.

Climate science is well enough understood to warrant taking action.

Economics is well enough understood that we know roughly the cost of doing things.

Engineering doesn't have all the answers but it has a lot of them.

So get on and do it, there's nothing to debate. Implement the things we know how to do whilst continuing to pursue solutions for the problems we don't have solutions for yet.

If the politicians want to look useful well then we can get a few apprentices to build a mock set of controls for the PM or Premier to operate which look exactly like the real ones but do absolutely nothing in practice. They can make a speech, cut a ribbon and press a few buttons for the media to observe and all good.

 

[Smurf1976]

how much money have Victoria and NSW put in for this

For the record as background:

WA, NT, Qld, Tas all have a very large portion of state government ownership of power generation. The details vary in terms of how that's structured but ultimately it's government behind it.

Queensland - CS Energy, Stanwell Corporation and CleanCo are major generation owners and all are ultimately owned by the Queensland state government. Some other generation also exists in private ownership.

Tasmania - Hydro Tasmania, TasNetworks and Aurora Energy (a retailer) are 100% state owned. Some privately owned wind generation does exist however.

NSW, Victoria and SA are private in practice. That is privately owned power stations, networks and retailers.

SA state government does technically own some generation but since it's leased to a private operator, who makes the decision about when it runs and so on, the state is effectively a "passive" owner really.

Some other governments also own generation in those states but that's in a "private" capacity as a for-profit business, it's not being run as a public service. For example Snowy Hydro owns the Angaston (50 MW) and Lonsdale - Port Stanvac (79 MW between them) diesel power stations in SA and runs them as a purely "private" business. It's a technicality that the federal government is the ultimate owner, they're operated in the same manner as they'd be operated if AGL, Origin etc owned them.

Same at the retail level. Eg Momentum Energy (aka Hydro Tasmania) retails in the privately owned states but it's doing so as a business, it being a technicality that the ultimate owner is an outside government. Same with anything owned by Singapore, China, France etc, it's a technicality that the ultimate owner is government since they're operating in the electricity industry in Australia as a for-profit business in practice.

 

[SirRumpole]

That doesn't sound decisive to me, actually it sounds as though they have about as much clue, as the coalition has..

Keeping the powder dry until the election, nothing new there.

 

[SirRumpole]

Various incidents in power stations, the oil and gas industry, theme parks, chemical manufacturing plants, hospitals, roads, hotel quarantine and so on all come to mind.

Apartment buildings cracking and becoming uninhabitable.

 

[rederob]

Interesting comments Rob, how much money have Victoria and NSW put in for this heavy lifting you talk about? To get rid of their coal fired power stations.
They have certainly talked the talk, which seems to be the way today, talk up a storm and do sod all.

The Feds on the other hand are spending $10billion on Snowy 2.0.
The NSW to S.A interconnect, the Federal Government is stumping up a half a billion dollars in loans and direct funding, S.A is putting in $50m Transgrid is stumping up the rest
.The Marinus HV link to Tasmania, is being funded by Tasnetworks and the Federal Government.

Victoria in 2020 said they are going to spend $1.6billion on renewable energy hubs, but I can't find any actual projects, that are currently underway.
NSW recently announced they will spend $380million over the next four years, to unlock private renewable spending.

So I really can't see where you are building your narrative from, the only sector of Government spending big amounts of money to support renewables, is the Federal Government.
Sounds a bit like one of your anti Government fairy tales, they actually seem to be the only ones doing much, your suggested heavy lifters appear to be the lip service mob IMO.

I commented specifically on hydrogen. Would you like me to send you some Specsavers vouchers.

I thought you lived in WA: This link in RenewEconomy shows the state is already host to around 30 renewable hydrogen projects and proposals, including the newly announced 50GW project unveiled by CWP, its 26GW Asia Renewable Energy Hub in the Pilbara, along with Andrew Forrest’s aspirational 40GW plan in the same region and multiple smaller projects proposed by Siemens, BP and others. Last month your Hydrogen Minister added to these.

Queensland has lots of small projects on the go, and a lot more - including some attached to Twiggy's efforts - to receive funding:

South Australia has some projects underway and more planned as well.
The ACT opened Australia's first public hydrogen refuelling station.

You can search for what other States are doing if you care, but the likes of Snowy 2 came about for an entirely different reason to why there is an increasing global focus on hydrogen.

 

[rederob]

Thing is though, that goes for anything.

Accountants, managers, CEO's, politicians, lawyers, dentists, doctors, plumbers, electricians, engineers, concreters, truck drivers.....

All can be employed on a "pay for service" basis if you really need them.

Trouble is, doing that means you always get someone who whilst probably competent as such, has zero knowledge of situation specific detail. For mowing the lawn that probably won't matter and it also won't matter if they're designing something new from scratch and you retain the same team through to completion.

Where it really does matter is with any existing technical thing. Having a rotating door of staff is at best inefficient, at worst it's when wrong assumptions are made and bad things happen.

When it comes to technical things, there's a huge value in having people who just know all about the equipment they're employed to operate and maintain. If it doesn't sound quite right, if a reading is 1% away from where they expect it to be, if the vibration they can feel through their feet feels different to normal and so on well someone who works on that plant all day every day will spot it, know the likely causes and proceed to investigate whereas to someone without that knowledge won't pick up those changes and thinks it's all OK until suddenly it goes very wrong.

Much the same as a patient can know for sure that something's wrong, that their body isn't quite right, despite their doctor seeing no obvious problem. Experience tells you what's normal and if reality doesn't match well then something is going on and it's very wise to find out what that is ASAP.

The alternative is wait until it breaks. No problem if it's minor, big problem if doing so causes a disaster. Even more embarrassing if it happens more than once, at the same site, costing ~$100 million each time after management intentionally purged out experienced staff. No I wasn't involved in any way for the record but I have contacts there.



I'll simply say that I'm aware of several examples where that isn't the case. Things which cost serious $ or which resulted in loss of human life.

Various incidents in power stations, the oil and gas industry, theme parks, chemical manufacturing plants, hospitals, roads, hotel quarantine and so on all come to mind.

Common element in all of them is that technical skill wasn't present (either at all or in the required volume) or was overridden in authority by someone lacking relevant experience or qualifications. These things just should not have occurred, they come down to cost cutting, politics, game playing, placing short term goals ahead of the long term (CEO bonuses, politicians being re-elected as the drivers there) and so on.

Cost to the community? Massive.

In the context of energy supply well the debate largely wouldn't exist if we had a technical focus to it all.

Climate science is well enough understood to warrant taking action.

Economics is well enough understood that we know roughly the cost of doing things.

Engineering doesn't have all the answers but it has a lot of them.

So get on and do it, there's nothing to debate. Implement the things we know how to do whilst continuing to pursue solutions for the problems we don't have solutions for yet.

If the politicians want to look useful well then we can get a few apprentices to build a mock set of controls for the PM or Premier to operate which look exactly like the real ones but do absolutely nothing in practice. They can make a speech, cut a ribbon and press a few buttons for the media to observe and all good.

You are talking about something completely different.
We don't have the technical expertise to build nuclear power plants, electrolysers or wind turbines.
Discounting nuclear - given it's an unlikely contender atm - the other elements of our renewable future are reliant on overseas expertise. If we truly want to be part of this unfolding future we need to do something about the skills gap now or other counties as well placed as Australia to move into hydrogen will gazump us.

 

[rederob]

When McGowan said W.A is committed to net zero by 2050 and a reporter said how are you going to that when you are letting Woodside expand, he got very narky.
But none of the media have followed it up, why?

Because they would have egg on their faces:

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting comments Rob, how much money have Victoria and NSW put in for this heavy lifting you talk about? To get rid of their coal fired power stations.
They have certainly talked the talk, which seems to be the way today, talk up a storm and do sod all.

The Feds on the other hand are spending $10billion on Snowy 2.0.
The NSW to S.A interconnect, the Federal Government is stumping up a half a billion dollars in loans and direct funding, S.A is putting in $50m Transgrid is stumping up the rest
.The Marinus HV link to Tasmania, is being funded by Tasnetworks and the Federal Government.

Victoria in 2020 said they are going to spend $1.6billion on renewable energy hubs, but I can't find any actual projects, that are currently underway.
NSW recently announced they will spend $380million over the next four years, to unlock private renewable spending.

So I really can't see where you are building your narrative from, the only sector of Government spending big amounts of money to support renewables, is the Federal Government.
Sounds a bit like one of your anti Government fairy tales, they actually seem to be the only ones doing much, your suggested heavy lifters appear to be the lip service mob IMO.

I commented specifically on hydrogen. Would you like me to send you some Specsavers vouchers.

Below is a few details on Hydrogen projects currently being funded, can't find many being funded by Victoria, or NSW.

So I thought I would help you out, I looked up what Victoria you know one of the committed to zero States is doing and funding.

Renewable hydrogen

Renewable hydrogen offers potential as a clean, safe and reliable fuel source. Hydrogen production is becoming not only cleaner, but cheaper.

www.energy.vic.gov.au

But alas couldn't find anything they are actually helping fund, just endless glossy pictures and rhetoric, sounds familiar.


However on a Federal note:

Over $100 million to build Australia’s first large-scale hydrogen plants

ARENA announced that it has conditionally approved $103.3 million towards three commercial-scale renewable hydrogen projects.

arena.gov.au

On behalf of the Australian Government, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has today announced that it has conditionally approved $103.3 million towards three commercial-scale renewable hydrogen projects, as part of its Renewable Hydrogen Deployment Funding Round.

Some of the hydrogen projects that the Federal Government are helping fund are below :

• Engie Renewables Australia Pty Ltd (Engie): ARENA will provide up to $42.5 million towards a 10 MW electrolyser project to produce renewable hydrogen in a consortium with Yara Pilbara Fertilisers at the existing ammonia facility in Karratha, Western Australia;
• ATCO Australia Pty Ltd (ATCO): ARENA will provide up to $28.7 million towards a 10 MW electrolyser for gas blending at ATCO’s Clean Energy Innovation Park in Warradarge, Western Australia;
• Australian Gas Networks Limited (AGIG): ARENA will provide up to $32.1 million in funding for a 10 MW electrolyser for gas blending at AGIG’s Murray Valley Hydrogen Park in Wodonga, Victoria.
• ARENA has committed to a $9.4 million investment to support Hazer, a Western Australia-based company with plans to build a demonstration plant that will produce 100 tonnes of hydrogen per year using a biogas byproduct from a sewage treatment plant.
• ARENA late last month to part-fund a hydrogen production pilot plant to be built by gas and equipment supplier BOC.
  The $3.1 million facility near Brisbane will produce 30,000 kilograms of hydrogen gas per year, which will be used to supply hydrogen vehicles to be trialled by the Queensland government.
• 
  
• Maybe you can direct us toward NSW and Victoria's hydrogen projects that are State funded? You know the States that are crowing from the roof tops, as their coal stations chug along.

 

[sptrawler]

Because they would have egg on their faces:
View attachment 131878

Don't talk nonsense Rob, McGowan has not legislated net zero, there is a lot of difference between lip service and actually doing something, I thought you knew that. I mean I've got an aspiration of owning a Porsche Taycan, so what, it ain't going to happen.

Here you go, just to get you up to speed, you know you don't like people who don't post facts.
There is a huge difference between committing to net zero and legislating net zero, that point seems to escape the muppets.
I'm keeping to known facts, not waffle, as some are peddling.

Solution to climate change more complex than 'close down the gas industry', WA Premier says

The WA government says it is considering legislating its commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but is shying away from stopping all new oil, coal or gas projects in the wake of a new damning climate report.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:
The WA government says it is considering legislating its commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
But Premier Mark McGowan has not committed to stopping new oil, coal or gas exploration or infrastructure in the wake of a new report which has found the Earth is heating quicker than expected and may be just 10 years away from heating up by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Mr McGowan said his government had already committed to the 2050 target.

"We can look at [legislating] that. That's one of the considerations that we're examining it," he said.

"That would obviously bind future governments, but this is the way the world is going."
But when Mr McGowan was asked if he was prepared for the Woodside Scarborough gas project off the state's north-west to be shelved, he said it was complex.

"I realise that a lot of people just say, 'Just stop everything,'" he told ABC Radio Perth.

"If we stop gas in Western Australia, well, basically we shut down a lot of our electricity system, we shut down Alcoa, we shut down a lot of the businesses here.

"It's more complex. You've got to have complex solutions."
He said Woodside was "moving a long way in the direction of removing emissions".

But given Chevron failed to meet the emissions targets for its Gorgon LNG project off the Pilbara coast, it was suggested to the Premier these emissions targets were important.

"So, you want me to close down the gas industry?" he asked.


By the way, personally I think McGowan will do and achieve far more than NSW and Victoria, he just wont make a big song and dance about $hit. He will just get it done.

 

[rederob]

Interesting Rob, in all your responses not a mention of my original post #5262, so I thought I would help you out, I looked up what Victoria you know one of the committed to zero States is doing and funding.

Renewable hydrogen

Renewable hydrogen offers potential as a clean, safe and reliable fuel source. Hydrogen production is becoming not only cleaner, but cheaper.

www.energy.vic.gov.au

But alas couldn't find anything they are actually helping fund, just endless glossy pictures and rhetoric, sounds familiar.


However on a Federal note:

Over $100 million to build Australia’s first large-scale hydrogen plants

ARENA announced that it has conditionally approved $103.3 million towards three commercial-scale renewable hydrogen projects.

arena.gov.au

On behalf of the Australian Government, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has today announced that it has conditionally approved $103.3 million towards three commercial-scale renewable hydrogen projects, as part of its Renewable Hydrogen Deployment Funding Round.

Successful projects are:

• Engie Renewables Australia Pty Ltd (Engie): ARENA will provide up to $42.5 million towards a 10 MW electrolyser project to produce renewable hydrogen in a consortium with Yara Pilbara Fertilisers at the existing ammonia facility in Karratha, Western Australia;
• ATCO Australia Pty Ltd (ATCO): ARENA will provide up to $28.7 million towards a 10 MW electrolyser for gas blending at ATCO’s Clean Energy Innovation Park in Warradarge, Western Australia;
• Australian Gas Networks Limited (AGIG): ARENA will provide up to $32.1 million in funding for a 10 MW electrolyser for gas blending at AGIG’s Murray Valley Hydrogen Park in Wodonga, Victoria.
• ARENA has committed to a $9.4 million investment to support Hazer, a Western Australia-based company with plans to build a demonstration plant that will produce 100 tonnes of hydrogen per year using a biogas byproduct from a sewage treatment plant.
• ARENA late last month to part-fund a hydrogen production pilot plant to be built by gas and equipment supplier BOC.
  The $3.1 million facility near Brisbane will produce 30,000 kilograms of hydrogen gas per year, which will be used to supply hydrogen vehicles to be trialled by the Queensland government.
• 
  
• Maybe you can direct us toward NSW and Victoria's hydrogen projects that are State funded?

ARENA is not the federal government. The Coalition actually tried to get rid of ARENA!
Were it not for ARENA and the CEFC, which built on Howard's 2001 RET scheme, we would be a renewables backwater.
So late is Scomo's government to the hydrogen party that it is only this year they realised they needed to incorporate hydrogen into the legislative mix for Australia's energy framework.
The power of the feds to make a difference is vested in what they budget for. In that regard the renewables sector considers they continue to miss the mark.

 

[sptrawler]

ARENA is not the federal government. The Coalition actually tried to get rid of ARENA!
Were it not for ARENA and the CEFC, which built on Howard's 2001 RET scheme, we would be a renewables backwater.
So late is Scomo's government to the hydrogen party that it is only this year they realised they needed to incorporate hydrogen into the legislative mix for Australia's energy framework.
The power of the feds to make a difference is vested in what they budget for. In that regard the renewables sector considers they continue to miss the mark.

Looks like Federal Government to me

Home

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) improves the competitiveness and increases the supply of renewable energy in Australia.

arena.gov.au

Talking about missing the mark, you haven't posted anything that Victoria or NSW are currently funding yet.
OOH the heavy lifters Victoria and NSW, what a bunch of dicks.
The only ones funding hydrogen projects currently are the Feds, W.A and S.A

 

[rederob]

Don't talk nonsense Rob, McGowan has not legislated net zero, ...

I will send you the Specsavers vouchers now. My link was to Woodside who made the commitment.

 

[sptrawler]

I will send you the Specsavers vouchers now. My link was to Woodside who made the commitment.

I didn't know Woodside, was a Victorian or NSW Government entity.

But as usual, you teflon up and move along.

 

[rederob]

Looks like Federal Government to me

Home

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) improves the competitiveness and increases the supply of renewable energy in Australia.

arena.gov.au

Talking about missing the mark, you haven't posted anything that Victoria or NSW are currently funding yet.
OOH the heavy lifters Victoria and NSW, what a bunch of dicks.

OMG, looks like The High Court is really the federal government
https://www.hcourt.gov.au/
Where have I been hiding?
Lots of agencies operate at arms length from government but rely on their funding. The ABC is another.

 

[sptrawler]

OMG, looks like The High Court is really the federal government
https://www.hcourt.gov.au/
Where have I been hiding?
Lots of agencies operate at arms length from government but rely on their funding. The ABC is another.

As it should be.
If ARENA is distributing taxpayers money to assist companies develop hydrogen projects, it is Federal Government funding of those projects.
The high court carries out a service on behalf of the Australian public and is funded by the Australian Government, if the Federal Government didn't fund it there wouldn't be a high court.
The ABC is meant to be doing the same and it is why they are always under the spotlight for bias, they are there to supply news for the Australian public and are funded by the Federal Government on behalf of the public.
ARENA is a department of the Federal Government, set up to investigate and where suitable provide public funding for emerging renewable projects, that meet certain criteria.
Being an ex Federal public servant, I would have expected you to have known that.

As I said I can find nothing hydrogen related that Victoria and NSW are funding, yet they can't shut up about themselves, but I guess nothing much changes over East.