Hydrogen power: hype or hope?

Why use more electrical energy to produce less hydrogen fuel energy? I can see a portability reason for transport, where fuel cell hydrogen might be lower-emissions (total cycle) than diesel or petrol. There might be cost savings via less need for new transmission and distribution systems ('poles and wires'). There may be a case for production for export (eg, to Japan), but efficiency and cost-competitiveness will be crucial.

In all such cases, we need to know emissions involved in the electrolysis phase of the full cycle. Otherwise we're hiding some emissions in the electrolysis phase and hyping use of hydrogen in the second phase as low- or no-emissions. That's just the sleight of hand greens use with wind, solar and hydro-power already.

Fossil fuels for electrolysis require carbon capture and storage of CO₂, etc, to cut emissions. Is that cost-effective at scale? Using, say, wind or solar for electrolysis may reduce, but not eliminate, emissions (net). Intermittency, etc, might be less of a problem. Hydrogen is produced when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining and then stored. Storage requires energy-using processes: liquefaction, under pressure, or chemical conversion. Storage becomes a hydrogen battery or fuel cell or hydrogen storage tank. That might lower emissions. But it is likely to require more 'poles and wires' to connect new renewables generation. Aren't energy losses between electrolysis and hydrogen use very large? Isn't the energy efficiency of the full process very low (20% maybe)? So isn't the full hydrogen cycle very costly and uncompetitive at present?

If Australia exports hydrogen, and Japan imports and uses the hydrogen to produce energy, the water 'lost' in the hydrogen production phase in Australia effectively is exported to Japan, where the hydrogen is used and recombines with oxygen to form water again. Is this an issue for water-scarce Australia? The report says 1kg of H₂ requires 9kg of H₂O. The HAF strategy would require huge amounts of Australian (liquid?) water for production. Moreover, the water must be 'high purity'. Isn't pure water very costly to electrolyse? That means lots of water is needed (maybe from desalinated seawater), purification, and more costs.

For transparency, I assume policy makers – and punters – will be told the answers to all of these questions.

I'm all for research and pilot studies on all alternative energy sources, free of political hang-ups. For affordable, reliable, low-emissions energy, how about nuclear power in Australia? It seems to work well in countries like France. Australia could start – quite quickly – with small modular reactors (SMRs). How do they compare today on flexibility, cost, reliability, emissions, and safety, with hydrogen or renewables? Put political phobias and ideology aside. Do some more independent, objective research, like that in the HAF report. Let's find out.

When it comes to energy sources, I'm happy with whatever mix of them best satisfies policy criteria like affordability, reliability and (possibly) lower emissions. Unlike the Holy See, I'm catholic with a small 'c'. I'd like to think politicians would set stable policy criteria, establishing a solid environment for long-term investment expectations, and then ensure markets are allowed to deliver against them. Hopes dashed so far. That's where my small 'c' catholicism lapses into agnosticism, or even atheism, from recent experience.

Speaking of religion, what about reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

If rational, and you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, you'll conclude all of this is irrelevant. You'll conclude Australia should do nothing to reduce its own emissions.

If rational, and you do believe in global warming, or are agnostic but risk averse, you'll look at the actions of the world's major emitters and the global arithmetic. If the rest of the world is allowing emissions to rise, even shutting Australia down completely is futile. At 1.3% of global emissions, and falling, acting alone, we won't make a difference. We might even make things worse if, as is likely, economic activity shifts to higher-emissions countries as a result.

Rationally, if you believe in global warming, your main objective should be to advocate an effective global policy response. Above all, that means eliminating current policy design flaws, especially the focus on national emissions production, thereby improving prospects of getting a global response. Unless we switch to national emissions consumption accounting, based on history's lessons of failure so far, you'll also conclude Australia should do nothing to reduce its emissions production. It's futile without a global response.

This arithmetic aside, polling suggests a lot of voters feel Australia should do something about global warming by reducing local emissions. Many believe equally reliable renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels because politicians and others assert they are. Like hydrogen, they're not. Alternatively, they expect others to pay higher power costs. They want theirs reduced. That's irrational. You can't have it all ways.

Unless the world's major emitters act to cut their emissions as well, Australia doing nothing is a rational policy unity ticket across Australian holders of all views about anthropogenic global warming.

Will Australians accept that obvious arithmetical logic today?

How will they decide? Will they use reason, or go with their feelings? Ditto their political 'leaders'?