logo
Green hydrogen hype fades but future hopes are bright

Green hydrogen hype fades but future hopes are bright

Perth Now02-08-2025
Investors call it "the valley of death": the decade-long stretch in which a budding technology struggles to become profitable.
For green hydrogen, the valley is looming large after two energy giants withdrew support for multibillion-dollar Australian projects within one month.
Following the announcements, a $14 billion plant will no longer be built in Gladstone, Queensland and a $55 billion proposal for Western Australia's Pilbara region is in doubt.
But while the global green hydrogen hype is starting to deflate, climate, energy and finance experts say there are still plenty of reasons to pursue production of the zero-emission fuel in Australia.
The investment pause may also give the industry time to reconsider uses for carbon-free hydrogen, they say, letting firms ditch the dream of a hydrogen car market and energy exports in favour of more promising pursuits such as green iron.
Green hydrogen, named for its zero-emission properties, has been pursued strongly in Australia since the release of the National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019.
The fuel is created using an electrolyser, powered by renewable energy, that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen.
It has been called the "Swiss Army knife of decarbonisation" due to its potential to cut emissions in fields such as transport, metal production, fertilisers and electricity.
But producing, transporting and selling green hydrogen is not proving as quick or as profitable as some pundits anticipated.
In addition to the two recent green hydrogen project withdrawals, Climate Energy Finance director Tim Buckley says many plans have been redrawn and erased around the world.
"Australia is not alone - this is a global trend and we have seen the global hydrogen hype dissipate dramatically," he says.
"We've had a series of hydrogen proposals shut down, cancelled or withdrawn over the last six to 12 months."
Even strong proponents of green hydrogen, such as Germany, have reduced support for the zero-emission fuel, he says, as it has proven expensive to produce without access to large-scale, cheap, renewable energy and an international carbon price.
Green hydrogen is also proving challenging to transport, defying predictions it could be shipped internationally to decarbonise energy production in neighbouring countries.
Investing in green hydrogen is like investing in internet companies during the 1990s, Mr Buckley says: risky even though it could pay off in 10 years.
"We're going now across the valley of death and it's usually a decade-long journey before you come out the other side and realise there was a lot of substance in what was being said.
"We were just deluded and over-hyped about how quickly it would happen," he says.
Australia has several small green hydrogen plants in operation and the federal government has issued two grants to larger facilities through its Hydrogen Headstart program.
The Murchison Green Hydrogen Project in Western Australia received an $814 million grant in March, followed by a $432 million grant for Orica's Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub this month.
Despite withdrawing from its proposed hydrogen plant in Gladstone and another in the US, Fortescue chief executive Dino Otranto says the energy giant remains optimistic about the future of the fuel.
Producing large amounts of green hydrogen for export "presents real challenges," he says, but Fortescue will use the fuel to produce green metals at its Pilbara plant.
"Our belief in the long-term role of green hydrogen hasn't changed but we acknowledge the market for green hydrogen as an export energy has shifted," he tells AAP.
"In the near term, our focus is on where hydrogen has a clear and immediate role - producing green iron."
Green iron has the potential to cut 90 per cent of emissions produced in the steelmaking process by using hydrogen and energy from renewable sources rather than coal or gas.
Australia could become a leading supplier of green iron as the world's biggest iron ore exporter, according to analysis from The Superpower Institute, and could generate as much as $386 billion a year from the metal by 2060.
Changing the focus on green hydrogen from an export material to fuel for domestic use is vital, says Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis global steel lead analyst Simon Nicholas, and could secure its future.
"The silver lining to a lot of these projects failing, I hope, is that there's going to be a refocusing on what we need to use green hydrogen for and we'll end up needing an awful lot less than we thought we did a few years ago," he says.
"It should be used domestically in the place that it's produced and it should be focused on a much narrower range of uses."
Hydrogen-powered cars have been outpaced by electric models, he says, and using the fuel to power long-haul trucks or heat homes seems unlikely.
Using green hydrogen to produce cleaner iron and steel, ammonia, fertiliser, explosives and other chemicals could give it a greater chance of success, however, and give Australia more export opportunities.
"It's going to be very important because competition overseas is there and growing," Mr Nicholas says.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

ASX set to slide, Wall Street steady; BHP results ahead
ASX set to slide, Wall Street steady; BHP results ahead

Sydney Morning Herald

time29 minutes ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

ASX set to slide, Wall Street steady; BHP results ahead

Wall Street is holding near its record heights on Monday, ahead of a week likely to be dominated by updates from the head of the Federal Reserve and from some of the biggest US retailers. The S&P 500 is virtually unchanged, coming off its first loss after setting an all-time high in three consecutive days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 28 points, or 0.1 per cent, with a little more than an hour remaining in trading, and the Nasdaq composite was roughly flat. The Australian sharemarket is set to retreat, with futures at 4.53am AEST pointing to a slide of 33 points, or 0.4 per cent, at the open. The ASX added 0.2 per cent to close at a record high on Monday. Reporting season continues with BHP, the standout on Tuesday. The Australian dollar WAS 0.2 per cent lower to US64.92¢ at 5.12am AEST. Novo Nordisk's stock that trades in the United States rose 4.2 per cent after the Danish company said US regulators approved its Wegovy drug as part of a treatment for a liver disease found in many overweight and obese people. Soho House, a membership club with locations around the world, jumped 15.1 per cent after announcing a deal where an investor group led by hotel-operator MCR would pay $US9 in cash for its shares. Loading Several of the country's largest retailers, meanwhile, were mixed ahead of their profit reports that are scheduled for later in the week. Home Depot, which will report on Tuesday, slipped 0.9 per cent. Target rose 1.9 per cent ahead of its report on Wednesday, and Walmart added 0.6 per cent before its report on Thursday. They, along with companies like Estee Lauder and Ross Stores, could offer a look at how different types of US households are holding up when the job market seems to have morphed into one where relatively few workers are getting fired but also hired.

What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?

Sydney Morning Herald

time29 minutes ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?

If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?

What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?

The Age

time29 minutes ago

  • The Age

What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?

If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store