"One of Australia's biggest energy companies has pulled out of plans to build the country's biggest green hydrogen plant, saying the fuel is too expensive to produce.

In a blow to the federal government's ambitions of developing a green hydrogen industry in Australia, Origin Energy today said it was walking away from a planned project near Newcastle in New South Wales.

The project, known as the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub, includes explosives giant Orica and was set to involve the production of 5,500 tonnes a year of hydrogen made using renewable energy.

But in a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange this morning, Origin boss Frank Calabria said the company was "exiting" the project because it could not get the maths to add up.

What's more, Origin told investors it "intends to cease work on all hydrogen development opportunities".

The announcement is a further setback for the fledging hydrogen industry and its backers in Canberra after billionaire Andrew Forrest's Fortescue slashed jobs and cut investments in the technology.

"We continue to believe hydrogen could play a role in the future energy mix," Mr Calabria said.

"However, it has become clear that the hydrogen market is developing more slowly than anticipated, and there remain risks and both input cost and technology advancements to overcome.

"The combination of these factors mean we are unable to see a current pathway to take a final investment decision on the project."

Decision a 'disappointment'

Federal Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who has spearheaded the federal government's hydrogen sales pitch, criticised the decision by Origin.

Mr Bowen said it was a disappointment that sold short Australia's potential to be a leader in any green hydrogen industry that emerges globally.

He said the government's incentives – headlined by its $8 billion hydrogen head-start program – could "unlock" billions of dollars in private investment.

And he applauded Orica for remaining part of the Hunter Valley project, saying the company "remains committed to … the region and to manufacturing solutions for a low carbon economy."

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/energy-giant-origin-retreats-from-flagship-green-hydrogen-project-as-hopes-for-fuel-fade/ar-AA1rCPMD

So Origin should have gone ahead even though the numbers don't stack up. ::)

Green PETROL seems like a more obvious money maker. Hydrogen powered vehicles (or hydrogen powered anything really) are practically non-existent. With the best of intentions, the hydrogen industry is trying to kill two birds with one stone: global emissions, and urban pollution. When you've only got one stone, "two birds with one stone" isn't a smart strategy.

Even "green-ish" fuel like 10% from recyclables, would find a market. Think for instance of 10% ethanol (and ethanol is not by any means emission neutral.)

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 8:31pm:

Green PETROL seems like a more obvious money maker.

It still emits CO2 when burnt. ::)

lee wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 8:42pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2024 at 8:31pm: Green PETROL seems like a more obvious money maker. It still emits CO2 when burnt. ::)

Gee, what an acute observation.

It's a closed cycle. To make "green petrol" extracts carbon from the cycle, burning it releases the carbon again.

Your beef (and mine) is with removing carbon from underground where it is not part of the natural carbon cycle, and then releasing it by combustion.

Tell me, if I burn wood from my own property, releasing carbon into the atmosphere, and I the same as a coal miner? Am I carbon neutral? Or ... am I something in between?

Ideally I would leave all the fallen wood to be returned to the soil. Then I would be truly carbon neutral. But I own the land, in a legal sense, and if I was obliged to keep it as wilderness then actually I would not really own it.

So it's "something in between" isn't it? There are degrees between being a carbon pirate, and being perfect when it comes to carbon emission.

One of my favorite sayings: "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 9:07pm:

Your beef (and mine) is with removing carbon from underground where it is not part of the natural carbon cycle, and then releasing it by combustion.

That's not his beef at all.

Setanta wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 9:16pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2024 at 9:07pm: Your beef (and mine) is with removing carbon from underground where it is not part of the natural carbon cycle, and then releasing it by combustion. That's not his beef at all.

Just trying to find common ground.

Perhaps I should have gone with "cheap energy for generations of Australians to come" but then I couldn't claim to agree.

I have no desire to live in a land of "dig it up and burn it" when the rest of the world have moved on. Getting sanctioned is a sucky future.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 9:41pm:

Setanta wrote on Oct 3rd, 2024 at 9:16pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2024 at 9:07pm: Your beef (and mine) is with removing carbon from underground where it is not part of the natural carbon cycle, and then releasing it by combustion. That's not his beef at all. Just trying to find common ground. Perhaps I should have gone with "cheap energy for generations of Australians to come" but then I couldn't claim to agree. I have no desire to live in a land of "dig it up and burn it" when the rest of the world have moved on. Getting sanctioned is a sucky future.

I honestly don't think you have any on this topic.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 9:41pm:

I have no desire to live in a land of "dig it up and burn it" when the rest of the world have moved on.

But the rest of the world has NOT moved on. China, India, Bangladesh. Most of the world wants cheap electricity. Not having it hits the world poor worse. ::)

lee wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 7:49pm:

"One of Australia's biggest energy companies has pulled out of plans to build the country's biggest green hydrogen plant, saying the fuel is too expensive to produce. .... So Origin should have gone ahead even though the numbers don't stack up. ::)

Why is it too expensive to collect river water, filter it, and then perform electrolysis in massive quantities?

Cheaper than spending that money on importing refined oil from our own crude oil back from the Singaporeans.

Or is that the thing? We have to do deals with Singapore, in order to ensure that our trade with southeast Asia remain continuous?

lee wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 10:08pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2024 at 9:41pm: I have no desire to live in a land of "dig it up and burn it" when the rest of the world have moved on. But the rest of the world has NOT moved on. China, India, Bangladesh. Most of the world wants cheap electricity. Not having it hits the world poor worse. ::)

The Chinese have those hydrogen stations. During their flooding, the Chinese rivers have enough flood water to collect that the Chinese can have plenty of power for the next few months.

Setanta wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2024 at 9:44pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2024 at 9:41pm: Just trying to find common ground. Perhaps I should have gone with "cheap energy for generations of Australians to come" but then I couldn't claim to agree. I have no desire to live in a land of "dig it up and burn it" when the rest of the world have moved on. Getting sanctioned is a sucky future. I honestly don't think you have any on this topic.

AC is a lot smarter than you realise, Setanta. When the likes of anyone over the age of 60 have long gone, it will be retirees like me and AC noting these pessimistic posts you forum members make.

I did something similar about 22 years ago with my posts on another forum website. The "science fiction" of 2002 became "science fact" by 2014. The "science fiction" of the year 2012 is becoming the "science fact" of 2020 to 2024. Plans are underway to see the country of Australia become the most futuristic country in the entire world before the year 2027. Although Brisbane's Olympics will become very futuristic.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 4^th, 2024 at 4:48pm:

Why is it too expensive to collect river water, filter it, and then perform electrolysis in massive quantities?

Yes. Electrolysis requires stable power. Renewables do not provide stable power. Then there is the energy required to compress the hydrogen, the risk of embrittlement, gas leakage, explosions.

lee wrote on Oct 4^th, 2024 at 5:44pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 4th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Why is it too expensive to collect river water, filter it, and then perform electrolysis in massive quantities? Yes. Electrolysis requires stable power. Renewables do not provide stable power. Then there is the energy required to compress the hydrogen, the risk of embrittlement, gas leakage, explosions.

In other words, we have to vote in the Liberal National Party to ensure that those nuclear power plants get built.

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2024 at 1:57am:

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Don't rip the towel rack off, like you did last fortnight, M.