The thing about hydrogen…..

There are downsides of course. On the hydrogen production side Australia lacks competitive advantage in hydrogen electrolyser technology. On the applications side the technologies that use hydrogen to replace coal and natural gas in heavy industries like steel and fertiliser production are still at the early stage.

Arguably the R&D challenges and risks are being underestimated by government. Lack of R&D successes will cost the taxpayer dearly. More generally, hydrogen and its potential role in the energy field are not widely understood. For example the claim "hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the universe" is popular for enhancing hydrogen's image. It may be true but is irrelevant.

The facts are that there are two "hydrogens". The one of interest is a flammable gas, burning to release its energy and forming water (H₂O). It is already an industrial chemical produced in quantity (globally around 90 million tonnes per annum) from natural gas mainly for use in the petrochemical, fertiliser and food industries. This hydrogen gas molecule comprises two atoms of the element hydrogen.

The "other hydrogen", the one so abundant in the universe, comprises hydrogen atoms. Our sun consists of about 75% such hydrogen.

For all practical purposes neither of those two forms of hydrogen exists naturally on Planet Earth. All our local hydrogen atoms are tied up tightly in chemical compounds, mainly water. Here, hydrogen the gas has to be made. That's the big difference between it and conventional fuels, which got their energy from naturally occurring materials. That energy nearly always originated from the sun.

The largest source of our hydrogen is natural gas, essentially methane (CH₄). Another source uses electrolysis and is generally restricted to sites where the cheapest hydroelectricity is available. Electrolysis involves the passage of electricity through electrically conductive solutions of salts etc. It is used widely in processes like chromium plating and copper electrowinning and refining. Electrolysis once yielded some 10% of the world's hydrogen. That seems to be declining but statistics are hard to find.

Electrolysis is expected to be the main method worldwide for manufacturing Green hydrogen. When the electricity is Green the hydrogen is Green.

Electrochemists (like me) understand what goes on in electrolysis. Electrochemistry is a relatively minor branch of chemistry. It will largely be a mystery to business people, politicians and the general public. Does that matter? It's hard to say. What's important is the availability of chemical technologists who do understand electrochemistry.

One set of ARENA hydrogen projects (there are 663 in total) aims to improve hydrogen production by electrolysis, already a mature industrial process. I have an old industrial electrochemistry textbook illustrating many ingenious electrolyser designs dating back over a century. There have of course been improvements. Modern advanced materials for electrodes, cells and separators are involved. Several specialist engineering firms still seem active in improvement and manufacture of novel electrolysers. It is hard to see where new Australian entrants encouraged by government funding could make an impact on electrolysis technology. We shall see.

Another vital aspect of the ARENA hydrogen program is the exploration of new industrial uses for green electricity, as in steel and fertiliser production. These will expand Green hydrogen's market prospects. ARENA also funds many projects on the industrial machinery and equipment needed for cooling, handling, reticulation, transport and storage of hydrogen, all of which are notoriously difficult and expensive.

What are the prospects of successful innovation in all these areas? I have a special interest in that question, and in general on the returns from scientific/industrial R&D. It was once my job as a CSIRO Divisional Chief (in the minerals and metal production field) to make decisions on projects for innovation in industrial processes. It was not academic research. We were dedicated to seeing our results in practical use. We engaged closely with industry to that end. I worked with scientists, technologists and engineers who lived for the day they could say their work and ideas were being used, profitably, by an Australian business. We knew such success was rare; that goes with the territory. Industrial research (the IR in CSIRO) is always risky. We learned to live with disappointment. Fortunately that line of work offers other rewards and sources of satisfaction.

Perhaps my experience has skewed my views but I fear that the outlook for Australia's expansive hydrogen R&D effort is not particularly encouraging. It would be good to see fewer projects and greater involvement of large firms with track records of relevant innovation.