sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

New Zealand is touting a green hydrogen economy, but it will face big environmental and cultural hurdles

Public Policy / analysis
New Zealand is touting a green hydrogen economy, but it will face big environmental and cultural hurdles
p
Graeme Robertson/Getty Images.

By David Dempsey, Andy Nicol, Kēpa Morgan & Ludmila Adam*

In its plan to retool the economy, the New Zealand government highlighted green hydrogen as a game-changing fuel. It can indeed be used to make climate-friendly fertilisers and steel or to power some modes of transport that aren’t suited to batteries.

But to provide a buffer against the volatility of overseas markets, Aotearoa would need to be as energy independent as possible. Ideally, this would mean consuming only green hydrogen produced here, using abundant renewable hydro, wind and solar resources.

A hydrogen economy is good in theory, but to make the switch at the scale of Aotearoa’s climate ambitions would require about 150 petajoules of hydrogen each year, according to one estimate. That’s about a quarter of our current energy use.

Hydrogen is produced in a process known as hydrolysis – the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, using electricity. To produce a quarter of Aotearoa’s energy consumption, hydrolysis would consume an enormous amount of water, about 13 million tonnes each year, the equivalent of a month’s worth of Auckland’s water demand.

This raises both cultural and technical issues, which we must address before embarking on a transition to hydrogen as a green fuel.

Consuming water has cultural implications

Freshwater has enormous significance to iwi and hapū. However, their views on hydrolysis as a consumptive use of water are not widely understood. If cultural complexity is ignored, hydrogen infrastructure or processes may fail to achieve an appropriate fit within Aotearoa New Zealand society and the technology could be orphaned.

Instead, we could start addressing this early through wānanga with representatives from a wide range of potentially affected iwi. Recognising and addressing cultural concerns at the outset will allow Māori to shape how the technology is developed and to share in the economic benefits of a hydrogen economy. The intention is to better understand how green hydrogen technologies and infrastructure could belong in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Close-up of a hydrogen-fuelled truck
Green hydrogen production would require enormous amounts of water. Shutterstock/Scharfsinn.

Supposing we are willing and able to make this vast quantity of hydrogen, our experience with other fuels suggests we would need about a month’s worth in storage at any given time. Storage helps to smooth fluctuating market demand, takes advantage of seasonal excess of renewables (in very windy, very sunny weeks) and provides emergency reserves for “dry year” crises.

Storing hydrogen underground

Unfortunately, hydrogen can’t be stored as a liquid except in specialised containers that keep it at extremely low temperatures. Like a freezer, this is always consuming energy.

A hydrogen storage tank at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
Hydrogen is stored in liquid form at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. Wikimedia/Doe, CC BY-ND.

Hydrogen could be kept in special high-pressure tanks, but we would need more of these tanks than we have people in New Zealand. These tanks would be costly, cover large tracts of productive land and would be prone to damage by natural hazards. Where would they all go?

Scientists have been looking at the possibility of storing hydrogen underground, in great caverns carved in salt or in old oil and gas fields.

We already do this with natural gas in Taranaki. When it’s not needed, gas is injected into an old field called Ahuroa and then extracted as required. Underground storage of gas (methane) is common practice, providing energy resilience. For example, given the disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine, Germany is accelerating gas storage in geologic reservoirs in time for winter.

We have recently shown there may be enough space in other Taranaki rock reservoirs to store hydrogen underground. But it won’t be easy.

We know the gas can react with certain kinds of rock. It can even be a meal for hungry microbes. Both these processes would consume a valuable fuel. But predicting whether they will happen requires special laboratory experiments that can replicate the extreme pressure and temperature three kilometres below ground.

We are also still learning how to predict how hydrogen will move underground. We know that some of the injected gas will never come back out. This is the “cushion” that acts a bit like a spring that pushes the other hydrogen back to the surface.

Some hydrogen may also escape into the atmosphere through small cracks in the rock. We’ll need to know how much, set up surveillance to watch for it and consider its effect on the climate.

These are just a few of the challenges posed by underground storage of hydrogen. But our experience with natural gas storage gives us confidence we can manage them with the right research and planning.

Making it work

New Zealand’s hydrogen future remains uncertain, but work is underway to prepare. Early signs for underground storage of green hydrogen are promising and there’s lots of enthusiasm for it overseas.

But technical feasibility is not enough: any solution must make economic sense and be acceptable to the wider public, particularly tangata whenua.

Proving the feasibility of any new idea takes time. We need to develop, sometimes fail, refine and then find success. But with each new extreme weather event, its clear we don’t have a lot of time. In this new era of adaptation, governments, industry, communities and scientists will need to work more closely than ever.The Conversation


*David Dempsey, Senior lecturer, University of Canterbury; Andy Nicol, , University of Canterbury; Kēpa Morgan, Adjunct Nga Pae o te Māramatanga, University of Auckland, and Ludmila Adam, Senior lecturer, University of Auckland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

29 Comments

This is what pi----s me off about academia, most.

It is nothing more than a research-funding bait-cast.

There is nothing here about how society might work - to the point where is can run a hydrogen technology safely/long term - ex fossil energy. Nothing about the EROEI of the exercise; it's negative (to be fair, so is charging/discharging a battery, or even an Onslow) output.

Yes, we will end up off fossil energy. Yes, we have one shot at doing something. Yes, we will be on renewables, by default. But assuming BAU (as this article does) is invalid. The valid logic-path, is to ask what can be maintained (taking into account entropy) long-term, and work backwards through a process of triage and evaluation. This is a mile from that.

Up
10

No political party is ever going to start this conversation are they? Even the Green Party aren't going there, unless I've missed it.

In the next x decades, your 'discretionary' activities/hobbies/leisure will be shrinking by y amount.

Not really a vote winning platform.

Up
6

I came to a shuddering halt at para 2 -

"Ideally, this would mean consuming only green hydrogen produced here, using abundant renewable hydro, wind and solar resources."

Abundant! 

Never mind the conversion process - how 'abundant' is that?

 

 

 

Up
9

No we will not end up off fossil fuels.  Look at what is going to happen in Europe when they are cut off from Russia's natural gas.  They will burn coal.  So much for their unsustainable and intermittent wind and solar renewables.  I still haven't figured out how the wind turbines and solar panels are 'renewable' when they take so many fossil fuels to produce and maintain.  The logical path is to start prospecting in NZ, off shore or as Uncle Donald liked to say, "Drill Baby Drill".

The whole idea of the green revolution is to indebt our country even more, under the pretext of 'saving the planet'.  Wake up.

Up
5

Uncle Donald borrowed that meme from a fellow Republican ... Micheal Steele first said " drill baby , drill " ... wise man ...

Up
0

We'll obviously end up off fossil fuels eventually, one way or another. That's the nature of finite resources - every barrel we burn now is a barrel we can't burn later.

We just get to choose the timing and nature of the transition. I'd have thought starting early is a smart move. 

This is even ignoring the fact that every barrel we burn makes the planet a little bit less habitable for our species. 

Up
3

FL - on. fossil fuels are finite.

By definition, then, we will end up off them. As we will any finite energy-store.

So by default, we will end up on renewables.

And - given our to-date exponential draw-down, that won't be far away.

Up
0

I reckon we need massive investment into the local NZ fossil fuels industry (or just energy investment in general) so we can actually achieve the transition to the next energy source effectively. 

Up
5

I don't know about that, but we do need a "real world" path that takes into account how unworkable cliff edge scenario's are. For example, the UK have banned new hybrid vehicle sales from sale from 2030 (yes, really), so Toyota have threatened to move all manufacturing out of the UK. Who do you think will blink first? Why not have a target that all new vehicles have to be at least hybrid by 2030, that still cuts emissions and is a workable transition period. Notwithstanding that there will not be the infrastructure in the UK to charge the new EV's, their grid is already at capacity.

It's just so unworkable as to be embarrassing. Toyota alone will end their charade.

 

Up
2

You dnt seem to have woken up to the fact that the future will not be ice or ev. The resources are not there. 

It will be public, better planing to eliminate mindless travel, wfh and leg power. Private houses on wheels for everyday use is but a brief moment in time.

 

Up
2

It was Daihatsu ended their Charade

Up
2

The UK have not banned hybrids from 2030, they have banned non-hybrids from 2030, and hybrids from 2035.

There have been rumours that the hybrid ban may be bought forward to 2030

Up
0

FA - too late.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-06-22/shedding-our-fossil-fuel-…

Read it all, but the first graph is the killer.

Up
0

I don't think climate change cares much about 'cultural implications'.

Up
9

Yes where does it end, do we need to go and seek input every time we put a toilet inside a house given the cultural implications of the practice to tangata te whenua?

Up
5

and do not even think about doing it outside - cultural appropriation. 

Up
1

Excellent article ... we need a diverse energy mix , and green hydrogen has a place ... when Tiwai Point shuts down , there'll be electricity galore to manufacture green hydrogen , fertilizers from local lignite , and establishment of energy hungry database centers...

 ... fantastic !

Up
0

We already have a diverse energy mix.  Coal, oil and natural gas.  Let's use it.

Up
2

... the current flock of ideologues are cutting us off from our beloved nat gas & oil ... they seem to believe that we can leap directly into energy " sustainability " from where we are ...

Daft buggers ! ... we need baby steps   ... lots of little steps towards that goal ... nat gas is a comparatively clean fossil fuel , and we need it ... and I'm a big fan of green hydro , nuclear  & of geothermal 

Up
2

Green pragmatists are rare - they get dumped from leadership positions because they 'aren't radical enough'.

Up
2

... which may highlight the success of " teal " candidates in the last Australian general election  .... folks who care deeply for the environment  , but who're pragmatic enough to realise we need a managed , orderly , logical transition  ..​​​​​​​. 

Up
0

Who have enough cognitive dissonance to fool themselves

helped along by touts

Up
1

Compared with petroleum, Hydrogen is net energy negative rather than net energy positive. It is far more complex and expensive to create, transport, store and distribute. It has far more complex engineering to manage and it is far worse than electric vehicles on this alone.

Electric Vehicles are also energy negative, but we waste far less energy getting the fuel to the vehicles across complex distribution networks since we simply transport electricity over power lines. Hydrogen has significant energy loss to the various processes involved in hydrolysis, the cooling of liquid hydrogen and so on compared to the losses on transmission lines at high voltage.

The fact that no engineers or physicists have come forward to tell the government how retarded investing in Hydrogen is shows me this is purely a grift for researchers and dishonest entrepreneurs for government funds. That or they are getting in on the grift.

Coming soon, Von Metternich's Hydrogen Motors Corporation, subsidized for billions by the Labour government.

Up
12

I saw a link in another thread to the implications of leaked hydrogen to the climate being very bad. I recall that helium escapes the atmosphere and is lost to the planet, but hydrogen being a reactive gas must react with the other gases in the atmosphere and hang around. Otherwise it would be lost to space as helium is.

Up
1

They have.

It was buried

And the media weren't much use.

http://wiseresponse.org.nz/2021/04/07/decoding-the-hype-behind-the-natu…

 

Up
1

James Shaw thinks the solution to climate change is encouraging everyone to blow bubbles with financial assets in the form of carbon credits, and academia have apparently bought into Megan Woods' rhetoric about the hydrogen economy. This is why we don't look to politics to solve anything important.

Woods' obsession with hydrogen has nothing to do with the environment, or meeting the country's future energy requirements. It has everything to do with creating an export market for green hydrogen, which won't solve anything besides making a few people very rich (initial investment of course being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, with any future profits destined for private pockets).

At least the article points out some of the many problems with hydrogen, but unfortunately concludes by saying "I'm sure we'll figure it all out somehow, and everything will be great". The only thing left to figure out here is that hydrogen is a wasteful dead-end in terms of energy, and not just a greener form of petrol

Up
10

sometimes I wonder how these articles make it in here. this is so half-baked and pandering. energy out for making green hydrogen is only 16%. if making what we need requires a month of auckland's water supply imagine the amount of power it would require. they conveniently didn't mention this. we are burning coal handover first at the moment to keep the lights on, there is no power surplus and wind and solar I never going to get us there. we need to get realistic, start developing oil and gas again as a transition and invest a nuclear.

Up
0

we are burning coal handover first at the moment to keep the lights on, there is no power surplus

Actually the wholesale electricity price for most of today has been 3 cents / MWh, or 0.00003 cents / kWh which suggests a surplus.  Been like that for a few days, with hydro storage passing above 90th percentile storage levels last week.

We do still seem to be burning a little bit of coal for some reason.  102MW out of 750MW capacity.  What's up with that? Surely the coal costs them more than they are getting for the electrons.

https://app.em6.co.nz/
https://www.transpower.co.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/…

Up
1

Can I ask the logic for nuclear when we have a good mix of renewables and a proposed battery solution?

 

Up
0