Originally posted by jantimot
Thanks for the CSIRO link. I read the executive summary. They make no mention of local H production/power generation, it’s all based upon large scale generation in very few locations feeding into a pipe network. This isn’t a great way to distribute a low thermal energy product. It would have been interesting to see their ideas on local, large scale use, taking energy from a group of suburbs’ roofs, making H, and subsequently generating power locally feeding back into the local grid. No transport required.
This hydrogen thing seems to be just getting going so while the theory sounds great , the bugs still have to worked out. What makes it more interesting is that there is a lot of global interest, not just Asia. I assume that's the case because of it's storage potential to fill the gap for renewables which is the silver bullet in my view.
Your suggestion of local generation is a good one . I have already heard that idea before. I went to the Energy Storage Conference in Melbourne late last year so maybe that's why I'm in front a bit with my information. They discussed localised hydrogen, particularly for smallish industrial hubs. That could be where I heard about the already available infrastructure for transporting ammonia actually.
Obviously there is plenty going on behind the scenes with the CSIRO. I reckon that post the federal election we might see some bigger announcements as this will kind of fit in with Labor's renewable energy policy.
Assuming Labor wins the election of course.
Anyway, I'm following this hydrogen thing so I'll post more stuff as I come across it.
. SEQEB’s rationale in the early naughties for encouraging local power generation was that it reduces the requirement for upgrading distribution infrastructure. Any rooftop solar is a bonus for them, as it’s used locally, reducing peak demand statewide. As the final kW costs something like $20m, the high rebates are justified because of the savings on CAPEX.
