Who to vote for?

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
While the Greens and Labor have been banging on about subsidies for rooftop solar panels.

"The Australian Government supports clean energy technology, including hydrogen, from research and
development through to commercialisation through the Australian Research Council, the CSIRO, the
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the
Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund. Through these investments, we are building the pipeline of
technologies needed to meet our Paris target and achieve emissions reductions beyond 2030.
Since 2015, the Australian Government has committed over $146 million to hydrogen projects along the
supply chain."

The problem is that they are producing hydrogen from natural gas. Its an inefficient process and in most situations you'd be better off just burning the gas in the first place.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
The old Soviet taught propaganda machine is working at full tilt.
It's either a "pork barrel" or "dirty energy"
Where did that information come from? The tree of knowledge!
Pity you don't take time to actually understand the science. Maybe if you just read the report (previously quoted) that was commissioned 4 years ago by Dr Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist and chair of COAG Energy Council Hydrogen Working Group you might be able to see where the future is heading.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
Yeah by doing something about it, they picked a handful of marginal seats and threw money at them to develop hydrogen hubs. Hubs is the latest gov-speak for pork barrel.
"Seven prospective locations across Australia have been identified and include: Bell Bay (TAS), Darwin (NT), Eyre Peninsula (SA), Gladstone (QLD), Latrobe Valley (VIC), Hunter Valley (NSW), and Pilbara (WA)."

Yep ! Definite pork barrelling.
The problem is that they are producing hydrogen from natural gas. Its an inefficient process and in most situations you'd be better off just burning the gas in the first place.

Yep ! Definitely producing hydrogen from natural gas.
 

Ron0z

Active Member
I was watching Q&A on TV last night. A young bloke asked a question. This was going to be the first time he'd be voting. (Do you remember doing that - I felt so privileged and proud the first time I voted.) Anyway, this young bloke was telling of his mates (presumably this would be their first time at the polls too) and how a lot of them were considering the independent candidates. They were generally not too keen on the major Parties it seems. As you know, there are a lot of independents running this time around. Anyway, the young bloke made me think of Parliament a few years back. Do you remember Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott? They were a couple of independents who made Parliament interesting, and in a good way, in my view. I'm hanging out to watch the votes come in on Saturday.

One thing to consider with Independents. If they generally follow your line of thinking then vote 1 for them. Then put the Party you normally follow as number 2. That way, at least the Independent will get some money from the govt for the effort they put in, providing they get sufficient votes. And, if the independent does get elected they'll be there supporting your views, which may be a good thing. Like the old Democrats used to say, "To keep the bastards honest."
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
In my younger days I supported the concept of independents and even voted for the Australia party back in the 70's. However years of politcal observation only taught me that independents and minor parties are a handbrake on government for proper policy development. Governments are slower enough already. Some of the most disastrous legislation has come about through independents interference. Some that come to mind are Gillards carbon tax and the Democrats modification to the GST with tax on some goods and not on others. A nightmare for business.
 

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
The old Soviet taught propaganda machine is working at full tilt.
It's either a "pork barrel" or "dirty energy"
Where did that information come from? The tree of knowledge!
Pity you don't take time to actually understand the science. Maybe if you just read the report (previously quoted) that was commissioned 4 years ago by Dr Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist and chair of COAG Energy Council Hydrogen Working Group you might be able to see where the future is heading.
I'm all for clean energy and think that fuel cells will give much better performance than current batteries, but some of the hydrogen hubs that have been announced will be cracking natural gas to get the hydrogen. They have conveniently ignored what happens to the carbon bit of those hydrocarbons.

I also think that the LNP have too much invested in the status quid and that is why they don't have a coherent plan for moving to reduced emissions future. Their donors and and companies they have investments in have too much invested in hydrocarbons that are in the ground for them to walk away without cashing them in.
The only reason the resource companies are investing in H2 is that they can bottle it and sell it to you. If you can recharge a battery at home and use as much energy as you can store, then there is no profit, but if you have to buy it in because there is no cheap way to cram high pressure H2 into cylinders in your backyard, then they can get you hooked on the convenience and charge what they like.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
Anything put forward by Angus Taylor is half-baked or corrupt... or both.
Oops your bias is showing up.
If you actually read the information instead of listening to your mates at the CPA meeting then you might actually know that submission for the hubs were by the state Governments. Maybe you might even discover that the Labor premiers are also behind the proposals.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
I'm all for clean energy and think that fuel cells will give much better performance than current batteries, but some of the hydrogen hubs that have been announced will be cracking natural gas to get the hydrogen.
It's called scientific research and development. That's why they build things like pilot plants.

In case you didn't know wind farms and solar farms happened over decades of development and in the early days cost a lot more carbon to make than what they could possibly save.
They have conveniently ignored what happens to the carbon bit of those hydrocarbons.
You do know that urea contains carbon?
The only reason the resource companies are investing in H2 is that they can bottle it and sell it to you. If you can recharge a battery at home and use as much energy as you can store, then there is no profit, but if you have to buy it in because there is no cheap way to cram high pressure H2 into cylinders in your backyard, then they can get you hooked on the convenience and charge what they like.
Again, maybe you could do a bit of research and discover that it probably wont be necessary to bottle the H2. Ammonia will be the fuel.

But here is something to think about. What if we had privately owned mini H2 hubs all over the countryside powered by small solar and wind farms supplying the transport and agricultural industries. No need to transport fuel or in the case of electric vehicles rewire the whole country.
 

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
Well, that reply had an added dose of snarky venom to it.
Urea is manufactured with natural gas as it is the cheapest way they currently have, its also why Russia is the major manufacturer. They can do it on the cheap and no one questions the environmental impacts too much.
 

Kippie

Moderator
But here is something to think about. What if we had privately owned mini H2 hubs all over the countryside powered by small solar and wind farms supplying the transport and agricultural industries. No need to transport fuel or in the case of electric vehicles rewire the whole country.
With such a network all over the countryside it would be more efficient to directly charge the electric vehicles than converting the electricity to hydrogen.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
With such a network all over the countryside it would be more efficient to directly charge the electric vehicles than converting the electricity to hydrogen.

I personally don’t see Batteries in their current form a long term solution and think a fuel cell style solution will be the way it goes
Batteries still fall way short of the mark to be a solution, they can run a few lights in your house and a small EV around town but struggle outside of that
 
Last edited:

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
With such a network all over the countryside it would be more efficient to directly charge the electric vehicles than converting the electricity to hydrogen.
It would, but if you have the real estate to put up a big enough solar array or wind power so you have excess capacity and then are then essentially getting the power for next to $0, then you can afford to write off some efficiency losses.
Hydrogen (or hydrogenous compounds) are just an alternative storage solution to batteries. The world is also used to dealing with liquid fuels, so liquid transport and storage is a convenient way of getting it to the end user. An energy dense liquid is also a lot quicker to load into a vehicle so you can send it on its way, rather than being tethered to the power supply while it re-charges.

Fuel cells and a storage tank can be made lighter and the weight reduces as you travel, unlike a battery where you are carrying its full mass, regardless of the charge it holds.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
Look at any service centre on a highway and the volume of vehicles that go through them getting fuel, a few sundries and then on their way. Convert that to a situation where you are plugging in and charging batteries and the whole dynamics change, I know people say you can go for a meal, or a gym session or whatever while they charge but who wants to do that in those circumstances?
 

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
A seedy roadside stop isn't my choice on where I'd want to spend my holiday, as short a time I can spend in transit means more time at my chosen destination.

But if you're going to do the whole paradigm shift, then charging stations that can be distributed through the main street of town are an option as the chargers are nowhere near as dangerous or as smelly as pumping hydrocarbons or ammonia and you can't spill it. It might see the small dying towns that have been bypassed by the highways have a whole new lease on life as if you have to stop for an hour, why not stop somewhere less depressing than a service centre?

You wouldn't want anything in town with bulk storage of anhydrous ammonia as its is pretty nasty if it develops a leak (think chemical weapon level nasty). At least hydrogen gas is lighter than air and floats away, so the explosion risk from pooling gas is reduced.
 

boobook

Well-Known Member
Look at any service centre on a highway and the volume of vehicles that go through them getting fuel, a few sundries and then on their way. Convert that to a situation where you are plugging in and charging batteries and the whole dynamics change, I know people say you can go for a meal, or a gym session or whatever while they charge but who wants to do that in those circumstances?

I've mentioned this before. But my friend who has a Tesla - and absolutely loves it, says it is almost useless for going anywhere over about 3 hours. I think it was a trip to Warrnambool from Melbourne over a few days where he checked the charging stations before leaving home and planned the trip around chargers, but when he got there he always had to compete with other electric car users. Even the accommodation had a charger for free but other EV guests parked there overnight and he never got enough charge to do day trips. He actually bought a second car ( SUV) so they could go on weekend trips which he loves doing. They are a fantastic city car is his view.

If the infrastructure isn't ready for weekend trips in Victoria, it has a long way to go.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
Well, that reply had an added dose of snarky venom to it.
Urea is manufactured with natural gas as it is the cheapest way they currently have, its also why Russia is the major manufacturer. They can do it on the cheap and no one questions the environmental impacts too much.
Agree! I feel very snarky when I hear people say "but hydrogen is made using fossil fuels". It's a line that Labor the greens and the environmental movement have been pushing for years and it just shows their total lack of comprehension of science. I was even accused by a Greens member, only 12 months ago, that I must work for the petroleum industry because I suggested using hydrogen.

A trial is being undertaken to see if our gas network and infrastructure can handle a mix of hydrogen with the natural gas. That hydrogen is being made from fossil fuels. It's a trial! A pilot study! No point in building massive green hydrogen plants to add to our gas supply if the infrastructure can't handle it. But the environmentalists just don't get it.

The future for green hydrogen and it's by products is massive and we have everything in this country to manufacture it to the world. I'm worried that now that we finally have a government that understands this that we will revert back to roof top solar and batteries imported from China.
 
Top