The global energy sector is in a state of flux, with the pace of change faster than anything we’ve experienced since the industrial revolution corralled humanity into the modern era. Yesterday’s assumptions are tomorrow’s chip wrappers.
Our Tasmanian Liberal government made a brave call in 2020 when it legislated the 200% Tasmanian Renewable Energy Target, which relies on two new high voltage cables under Bass Strait to deliver our hydro and wind energy to mainland Australia.
Fast-forward three years, and the energy dynamics on Australia’s eastern seaboard have changed. The election in May last year of a federal government with an acceptance of climate science and at least the semblance of an energy policy has given some certainty to investors in renewable generation and storage. There’s a carbon emissions target and an acceptance that fossil fuel usage will decline (with a nod and a wink to the industry lobbyists).
The Tasmanian ‘vision’, having started on the basis of exporting electricity, has morphed into a dual plan to also use new wind power to produce hydrogen – a largely unproven technology which backers believe will replace diesel fuel in large transport vehicles, heavy machinery and ships.
Fourth in line
Simple maths says Tasmania can never support a major hydrogen industry.
While the state Liberal government churns out the mantra of ‘battery of the nation’ and ‘powerhouse of Australia’, the troubled Marinus Link on which all its policies hinge is undergoing an image makeover.
Much is made of Tasmania’s renewable energy production. It’s true that most of the state’s annual output is derived from hydro and wind generation, aided by rooftop solar. Government spin leads people to believe that the island state is the biggest producer of renewables in the country, and that Victoria, via the National Electricity Market(NEM), will pay big bucks for our clean, green energy.
However, the truth lies in figures from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. Its Australian Energy Statistics of April 2022 indicates Tasmania’s 10,576 Gigawatt hours (representing 98% of our energy production capabilities) places us fourth in renewable energy rankings. It falls well behind the NSW output of 17,128GWh (24% of production) Victoria‘s 15,293 GWh (30%) and Queensland’s 12,607GWh (18%).
Every state has plans to double its total energy output to meet the demands of electrification, and Tasmania’s share of the NEM will never increase above its 4% contribution. The Renewable Energy Framework assumes an additional 9,950 megawatts of wind and solar generation will be built in the state to reach the 200% target by 2040. That would require around 2,000 wind turbines to be added to the current 198, supported by large corridors of transmission towers.
However, with all this expansion in capacity, the Hydrogen Plan Action which Renewable Energy, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania (ReCFIT) embraces is just pie-in-the-sky stuff.
World’s first green hydrogen
Back in 2021 Andrew Forrest was out and about in the state, promising the world’s first commercial scale green hydrogen facility at Bell Bay. His pipe dream was spoiled when the CEO of Hydro Tasmania contradicted Energy Minister Guy Barnett, and publicly announced there was no capacity to deliver the required energy.
It was reported that Forrest was angling for an energy price of $20 per megawatt – or about half of the rumoured rate which our major industrial users currently pay. That would have amounted to a $50 million subsidy per year.
Within days Forrest popped up in Queensland, where millions in subsidies were garnered for his alternate vision – not the manufacture of hydrogen, but the production of electrolysers to separate the gas. Also within days, Hydro CEO Evangelista Albertini was gone, silenced with a $475,000 golden handshake.
The problem which the Hydro boss identified was the guarantee of firming power to keep a hydrogen or ammonia plant running 24/7.
As well as Forrest Future Industries’ 250 megawatt plant, Woodside Energy proposes a 300 MW pilot plant, Origin a 600 MW facility, as well as two proposals for smaller scale bio-energy factories. All of them see proposed wind farms as their energy source. In Tasmania, a wind farm has a ‘capacity factor’ of around 40% – which means that each one produces less than half of its nameplate capacity.
Hydrogen energy demands
Using a 300 MW hydrogen plant as an example, a 300 MW wind farm (such as the proposed St Patricks Plains development) leaves a 60% shortfall in its ability to supply constant power. This firming power would need to be guaranteed by Hydro Tasmania.
A 300 MW hydrogen plant requires 2,628 gigawatt hours of electricity annually – which is 24% of the state’s current production. Hydro’s firming power contribution at 60% of 2,628 GWh would require 1577GWh – which would be 19% of our water-powered generation. This would be for just one pilot plant.
Another way to look at the energy demand is to calculate the requirements needed to make the 250,000 tonnes of gas which is continually cited as targeted annual production. One tonne of hydrogen requires 49.5 megawatt hours of power to produce and compress, which means an annual consumption of 12,375 GWh – 20% more than the entire state output.
The Government faces a dilemma: How to store water in the lakes as a potential battery for the Victorian market, while simultaneously backing-up the Bell Bay Hydrogen Hub.
Enter Marinus Link
For the past five years Tasmanians have been told we will export our highly desirable, green, renewable energy to a desperate Victorian market via the NEM. It will be a money-spinner for the state. Minister Barnett was enthusiastic in a Government Business Enterprise hearing in late 2020: “We have the trifecta in Tasmania, which is affordable, reliable, clean electricity. That is what the rest of Australia wants, that is what the rest of the world wants and desires.”
But to realise this windfall, Tasmanians must accept the unchecked proliferation of wind farms – all privately owned – and the borrowing of $3.6 billion to construct a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Cethana in the state’s north-west, plus another $1 billion loan for transmission infrastructure.
This is in addition to the latest estimate of $3.8 billion needed to build the twin undersea cables from Heybridge to Gippsland. The only concrete fact that’s emerged thus far is that the construction cost has risen from about $2.5 b to the current price (which was nonchalantly upped by another $300 million late last year).
Despite calls from energy experts and the public, a business case has yet to be released for its construction, with ‘a final investment decision’ to be made by the end of 2024. A lifeline announcement in October 2022 by the Albanese Government to spread the cost between the Commonwealth, Victoria and Tasmania has been embraced by officials here.
Minister Barnett assured us: “Equitable cost sharing arrangements…have been agreed, meaning that Tasmanian consumers will only pay their fair share [and]…low-cost financing…will reduce the annual cost of Project Marinus for electricity customers by up to half. Once Marinus Link is built, Tasmanian customers [will] pay no more than 15% of estimated total project costs”.
The Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen will not be drawn on precisely what the Commonwealth and Victorian contributions will entail, except to repeat that Federal loans at a concessional interest rate will now make the project viable.
Victorian priorities
However, it has become apparent that an acceleration in renewables projects on the mainland has taken the gloss off the rosy profit predictions made earlier. Indeed, Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio stated in June 2022 that the KerangLink was the focus for Victoria’s transmission extension, forecasting electricity exports to NSW of 1930MW by 2026.
A spokesman for D’Ambrosio wrote in response to enquiries: “KerangLink is a key priority for the Victorian Government, and our preference is to see KerangLink complete before Marinus Link. Regarding how Marinus Link will be paid for, that is still to be determined. The Victorian Government will support what we determine to be in the best interests of Victorian consumers.”
At the moment, Victoria and the Commonwealth have only agreed to fund two thirds of 20% of the project cost – that’s just $252 million each. The remaining $3 billion will be debt.
With the troubled Basslink interconnector as a living reminder, there’s a growing wealth of evidence which paints Marinus as a debt-ridden white elephant. So why does the Tasmanian Government persist in its determination to see the link constructed?
Political ideology might be the simple answer.
New message
With the quiet departure in January of Marinus Link Pty Ltd CEO Bess Clark, there’s been a subtle shift in the narrative. This might well be part of the strategy of Melbourne PR firm 89 Degree East, who are engaged in a $1.1 million campaign to sell Marinus to the Tasmanian public. Clark’s in-house successor was also massaged into her role only recently, coinciding with The Mercury’s in-step advertorial feature ‘Future Tasmania’, which culminated in a cheer-squad of corporate and government employees at a $150-a-head business lunch.
The message has now shifted from the cable paying its way through the export of high margin hydro power to its ability to import power at give-away prices when there’s an oversupply in the Victoria. The fact that massive Large Scale Batteries are now multiplying in that state (Hornsdale, Moorabool, Mortlake) and elsewhere throughout the other four states in the NEM seems not to have pervaded the pro-Marinus argument.
Eight new grid-scale lithium-ion batteries have been partially funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. According to ARENA, the new batteries have a combined capacity large enough to power the entire state of Tasmania for more than three hours using stored renewable electricity.
While this doesn’t match Hydro’s claim that pumped hydro will result in deep storage of 12 hours duration, these facilities will be in service by 2025, while ‘battery of the nation’ and Marinus will not be fully commissioned until 2033. That’s plenty of time to build dozens more batteries – many using emerging technologies. These recharge every day, and don’t require huge energy draws to push water 3.5 kilometres back uphill.
The new narrative is that there will be so much unwanted power in the NEM that we can import it for next to nothing – which fits conveniently into a model where hydrogen manufacture could soak it up. But if surplus energy is truly the case, surely it would be far cheaper for a manufacturer to source the energy on the other side of Bass Strait. Not only would this alleviate the cost increase from transferring the power via Marinus, but negates the expense of shipping hydrogen or ammonia interstate.
So how will these evolving generation and storage issues affect the Marinus business case? Apparently we’ll need to wait until December 2024 to learn the details. In the meantime, millions of dollars are being spent as Marinus Link Pty Ltd acquires land, has a vessel at sea plotting the cables’ path, and is engaging in an orchestrated campaign to win our hearts and minds. It’s parent company, TasNetworks, is scoping high-voltage transmission corridors to get new generation to the converter station at Heybridge.
Huge amounts of taxpayer-funded effort is being expended on Marinus Link, and by extension, hydrogen manufacture and Tasmania’s subjugation by wind farms. Applying some simple sums could redirect the time and effort being put into a project which appears increasingly unwanted (and unviable) by the day.
Monumental plans and waste
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) sees Marinus as a necessary link in its integrated grid – but its perspective is one of corporate self-interest, and admits in various reports that the financial case must be made to the satisfaction of individual states before construction is locked in.
Federal Minister Bowen is a zealous advocate of the need for complex interconnection, and his Rewiring The Nation budget of $20 billion will provide cheap loans needed to get Marinus included in his plan for 10,000 kilometres of new transmission infrastructure.
Victorian Energy Policy Centre researchers Prof Bruce Mountain and Prof Simon Bartlett believe we should be focussing on local production, storage and consumption of energy. In a detailed submission to AEMO last week, questioning the viability of the Western Renewables Link and the Victoria-NSW Interconnector West, they state:
“Instead of making the best use of the wonderful grid we already have, AEMO want the community and renewable generation developers to wait on it to deliver its monumental plans… Its own analysis shows that the most monumental thing about its plans is the amount of time, natural resources and money it wastes.”
Tasmania is one of the first places on the planet which can run entirely on renewable energy, and has a net zero carbon footprint. Why not build carefully sited, publicly-owned wind farms; update existing hydro turbines; and keep the energy on-island to attract sensibly-sized businesses to our state? It seems a far more achievable goal, and we could see positive change immediately – not in a decade.
Brad Saunders
April 20, 2023 at 13:06
Mr Pullen’s research is to be applauded.
Wouldn’t it be nice to get a detailed and well researched and cogent reply from Energy Minister Barnett? Or is that too much to expect?
Michael Vanderkelen
April 20, 2023 at 13:19
This is an incisive and well researched article which should be recommended reading for all Tasmanians.
Cheryl
April 22, 2023 at 16:48
I always thought that Tasmania was the biggest green energy producer in Australia, but these figures clearly show Tasmania can never be the “Battery of the Nation”.
So much for all the Tasmanian government hype that we are exposed to here!
Jim
April 23, 2023 at 14:39
Does it really take so much energy to make hydrogen? If the author is correct, then how can we possibly build any kind of large-scale industry here?
When the Hydro CEO publicly stated that Tasmania does not have the capacity to supply the required energy, he suddenly disappeared with a very large Golden Handshake. The former Hydro CEO tried to tell the government we could not sustain the various projects which have been announced for Bell Bay, but he was abruptly sidelined, perhaps because the Minister did not want Tasmanians to know the facts.
Chief Editor TT
April 24, 2023 at 18:29
Well, the most efficient electrolysis seems to be around 50-55 kWh per 1 kg of hydrogen. Put it this way: it’s like running a 1,000 Watt heater continuously for over 2 days and nights. It’s a lot of energy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There’s more about hydrogen here …
— Moderator
Julie
April 23, 2023 at 14:52
This excellently researched article clearly sets out the massive flaws inherent in Marinus Link, and so must bring into question the competence of the government to effectively manage our precious renewables for the benefit of the state.
I look forward to more information becoming available regarding the amount of water consumed in the process of hydrogen generation and the future implications for water quality and supply.
Ben Marshall
April 25, 2023 at 16:55
Let’s just cut to the chase …
The Tasmanian State government, backed by the Labor ‘opposition’, is pushing a plan that offshores jobs along with Tasmanian wind energy (which we’re giving away to foreign renewables investors) so they can build and goldplate a vast new transmission grid and take a cut of the shift to renewable energy. All the money siphoned through power bills and TasNetworks’ building and leasing of the new grid will come from us. The only thing the two major parties care about is the promise of increased general revenue which they don’t have to declare as a tax, even though we’ll pay every cent they, potentially, make out of Marinus.
Marinus and so-called REZs (renewable energy zones) and the industrialisation of the northern half of our State has nothing to do with ‘action on climate’ or ‘jobs and growth’ or ‘downward pressure on power bills’.
It’s a cynical money-grab, and one that stands full-square in the way of genuine benefits for Tasmanians and genuine action on climate. Marinus is a con, and it’s time all our pollies with any actual principles called it out.
Whether you vote Liberal, Labor, Green or Independent, you need to ask why they’re supporting a plan that rips us off, and does nothing to benefit our economy or our environment.
Greg Pullen
April 27, 2023 at 15:21
The Chief Editor’s comments about energy needs for hydrogen production are accurate, but are better expressed in tonnes to understand the scale of the consumption.
The electricity needed to produce one tonne of hydrogen equates to the 1,000-watt heater running non-stop for 5.5 years – or one thousand similar 1,000 watt heaters running continuously for two days and nights.
With a production target of 250,000 tonnes annually, that’s an incredible increase in demand.
Ross Lincolne
April 30, 2023 at 09:28
Congratulations Greg, for an excellent and comprehensive coverage of the Marinus project. Our government seems determined to push onto us projects that we don’t want and will be to our detriment. Include the Mac Point stadium in that. Millions of dollars of current expenditure to prepare for Marinus is somehow justified, even through a go ahead decision is not until the end of 2024.
Basslink was initially proposed to cost about $370 M. But before the go-ahead decision, financial hedging by our government cost Tasmanian $180 M when the Australian dollar went in the opposite direction. This was all part of the suspected final cost of around $780 M and consumers are funding about $150 M pa in operations’ costs and fees. Clearly these projects push power prices up.
We are being sold a pup.
Luke Glover
May 10, 2023 at 21:18
Great article, Greg.
I’m not sure if you have ever come across any of my comments on other websites, but I also, have been trying to draw attention to this important issue. The gas companies are trying to set up shop in Tasmania and effectively skim Tasmania’s cheap renewable hydro energy whilst not having to pay to set up the generation themselves. They will take this cheap energy out of the market. Tasmanians will be left to pay for generation shortfall and new build cost/environment approvals when these gas companies buy up large volumes of Tasmania’s cheap hydro renewables on long term contracts / skimming Tasmania’s cheap renewables.
When that power is taken out of the market and repurposed for hydrogen export, gas companies will make profit at Tasmanians’ expense because a lot of supply will be taken out of the market thereby leaving Tasmanians with higher electricity prices. The gas companies never paid for all the infrastructure to be set up, but they will try to skim it.
As you rightly point out, it’s a question of scale. The scale here is well beyond say, even an aluminium plant, and these hydrogen export projects are only at pilot scale! It’s a material amount if energy that will be taken out of the market which will have a material effect on Tasmanian electricity prices and result in a material amount of new generation to be built to supply Tasmanians in the future if current hydro is taken out of the market.
Proponents of hydrogen export should not be able to cream already built cheap generation and take that out of the market, thus leaving the consumer having to build more new hydro. They should be required to build their own standalone projects that sit independent from the grid so as to not interfere with the grid development which is primarily to serve the public, given that the public is paying for most of it.
Chris
May 12, 2023 at 16:57
Miracles occur every two thousand years, and Smiley will not be around then!
Chris
May 12, 2023 at 17:06
Hydrogen was produced in the 1950s and the 1960s at the Zinc works using 28 Megawatts for the production of Sulphate of Ammonia. It was stored in silos and was a potential explosive site like that at Beirut.
The gas cylinders are still there and the infrastructure for electrical connections remains, but Hydrogen MUST be produced from renewables and be off peak to become cheap enough to justify the cost. The idea that it could be made for transport is ideal (cf Brighton Hub) where the power from wind and or solar exclusively makes my day!
The wind does keep blowing and the sun shines daily.
Simon Warriner
May 15, 2023 at 21:10
Our understanding of the utility of hydrogen might be greatly improved if someone would tell us the number of litres of diesel required to move a given vehicle the same distance as a tonne of hydrogen.
That said, the whole deal comes across as dodgy with no discernible benefits, and with considerable costs for Tasmanian residents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon, try this: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/properties?fuels=HY&properties=energy_ratio
It looks like 1 kg of hydrogen has 3.41 litres of Diesel Gasoline Equivalent, so 1 tonne of hydrogen has the equivalent energy content of 3,410 litres of diesel fuel.
This means hydrogen offers a major weight advantage over diesel.
Corrections are welcome.
— Moderator