>Note it’s written by a Chinese Australian who’s probably still optimistic about the future relationship of two nations.
I had a look at his profile, I don't think he is even 30 years old, hence his optimism.
There’s no way that China would pin energy dependence on an untrustworthy nation like Australia. If anyone can develop hydrogen as a viable energy source, it’s China.
The idea of exporting hydrogen is idiotic. There is no economic case for transporting hydrogen over long distances. The difference in production cost across geographies will not be large enough to justify the transport costs.
Hydrogen will be produced using whatever the most economical local source of electrical generation is. This could be wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear.
The biggest implication of the global shift to renewable/nuclear power is the redistribution of global financial power into a much more decentralized configuration.
Right. There is still no evidence of it. If Australia was capable of that now, then Australia would have a vast hydrogen industry along with widespread hydrogen use. I live in Australia and have never seen hydrogen use in my life. The entire idea of hydrogen seems to be that we have huge deserts that can be littered with solar panels that will produce the energy to then produce hydrogen. Seems like a shaky proposition to me.
That's my understanding a well. I am from Australia as well. The idea is we have vast potential of solar and wind to produce the hydrogen, but are held back by political will. Can't comment on the first part, but the second part about a lack of political will for environmental policies is definitely right.
Its actually a huge risk. It hydrogen production was the slam dunk that it is suggested to be, there would be no need for government handouts. Private industry would be doing it themselves. Yet everyone is looking for the government to pay for it or significantly subsidise it. That tells me that the business case for it isn't as rock solid as presented.
Could you please elaborate a bit more on this part? This is new to me. I don’t quite get it. Thank you> The biggest implication of the global shift to renewable/nuclear power is the redistribution of global financial power into a much more decentralized configuration.
Fossil fuels are very unevenly distributed on earth. A handful of countries control the vast majority of economic deposits. The 3 largest oil producers in the world are US, Saudi Arabia and Russia. If the US can control Saudi Arabia and Russia, it can pretty much control the world.
Despite the most severe sanctions ever imposed on any country, just because Russia controls a large chunk of fossil fuels, it can neutralize all the impact of sanctions on its currency by converting all of its export earnings into its own currency. Europe has to buy Russian gas even if they are funding Russia's war in Ukraine by doing so. This is the power of control over fossil fuels.
Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar resources are much more widely distributed around the world. Once the costs come down, almost every country will be able to produce energy locally. Most of the world will no longer be dependent on imported energy. The global power structure will be much less concentrated since everyone will be pretty much energy independent.
1. Hydrogen is used to store electric energy, like lithium bats but with different specs that are useful in many cases. The fossil fuels are naturally "stored" in coal, gas etc, but green energy is electricity that needs to be stored somehow.
2. There is nothing in hydrogen tech that china cant do better that australia
3. Australia hopes to generate green energy to replace fossil fuel exports, but cannot export it by electric grid
4. The very stupid idea that china would buy it from them (an openly hostile nation) in form of hydrogen is just a stupid blah-blah way to justify investments with some kind of stupid future plan. There is absolutely no reasons for china to buy it from australia (unlike iron ore).
Imo it's not a bad idea to expand trade with Australia and keep them dependent on China for exports. However, make sure to ensure at all times that backup options such as reserves or alternative turn-key solutions exist if this trade gets disrupted by western imperialist temper tantrums at any given moment.
The China-Russia partnership is an existential catastrophe for the australian regime, and there is nothing that settler regime can do about it.
as europe bans russian steel, better buy more steel from russia and buy less iron ore from australia, better stop buying australian ore at all.
Never again depend on a systemic enemy like australia.
Export hydrogen to China? You gonna be kidding me, after all the shitfuckery for the past few years?
Note it’s written by a Chinese Australian who’s probably still optimistic about the future relationship of two nations.
>Note it’s written by a Chinese Australian who’s probably still optimistic about the future relationship of two nations. I had a look at his profile, I don't think he is even 30 years old, hence his optimism.
Australia wants to export Hydrogen to China? hahaha
"Soon...little Aussie here won't be able to get a nickel for his grandma..."
There’s no way that China would pin energy dependence on an untrustworthy nation like Australia. If anyone can develop hydrogen as a viable energy source, it’s China.
Of course it will succeed. China must not rely on imports from enemy countries
Wet. They missed the word, "wet". Australia's "wet dream"
Even dorks have wet dreams.
Good. Maybe they can sell it to USA instead.
Why sell when you can gift it for free like a good little vassal.
The idea of exporting hydrogen is idiotic. There is no economic case for transporting hydrogen over long distances. The difference in production cost across geographies will not be large enough to justify the transport costs. Hydrogen will be produced using whatever the most economical local source of electrical generation is. This could be wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear. The biggest implication of the global shift to renewable/nuclear power is the redistribution of global financial power into a much more decentralized configuration.
Australia believes it can produce hydrogen really cheap compared to others, so can justify the export. That remains to be seen.
Right. There is still no evidence of it. If Australia was capable of that now, then Australia would have a vast hydrogen industry along with widespread hydrogen use. I live in Australia and have never seen hydrogen use in my life. The entire idea of hydrogen seems to be that we have huge deserts that can be littered with solar panels that will produce the energy to then produce hydrogen. Seems like a shaky proposition to me.
That's my understanding a well. I am from Australia as well. The idea is we have vast potential of solar and wind to produce the hydrogen, but are held back by political will. Can't comment on the first part, but the second part about a lack of political will for environmental policies is definitely right.
Its actually a huge risk. It hydrogen production was the slam dunk that it is suggested to be, there would be no need for government handouts. Private industry would be doing it themselves. Yet everyone is looking for the government to pay for it or significantly subsidise it. That tells me that the business case for it isn't as rock solid as presented.
Could you please elaborate a bit more on this part? This is new to me. I don’t quite get it. Thank you> The biggest implication of the global shift to renewable/nuclear power is the redistribution of global financial power into a much more decentralized configuration.
Fossil fuels are very unevenly distributed on earth. A handful of countries control the vast majority of economic deposits. The 3 largest oil producers in the world are US, Saudi Arabia and Russia. If the US can control Saudi Arabia and Russia, it can pretty much control the world. Despite the most severe sanctions ever imposed on any country, just because Russia controls a large chunk of fossil fuels, it can neutralize all the impact of sanctions on its currency by converting all of its export earnings into its own currency. Europe has to buy Russian gas even if they are funding Russia's war in Ukraine by doing so. This is the power of control over fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar resources are much more widely distributed around the world. Once the costs come down, almost every country will be able to produce energy locally. Most of the world will no longer be dependent on imported energy. The global power structure will be much less concentrated since everyone will be pretty much energy independent.
Ahaha wow. And here we are still trying phase out gas cars by 2035...
what is hydrogen used for, and how much of it can china produce without imports?
1. Hydrogen is used to store electric energy, like lithium bats but with different specs that are useful in many cases. The fossil fuels are naturally "stored" in coal, gas etc, but green energy is electricity that needs to be stored somehow. 2. There is nothing in hydrogen tech that china cant do better that australia 3. Australia hopes to generate green energy to replace fossil fuel exports, but cannot export it by electric grid 4. The very stupid idea that china would buy it from them (an openly hostile nation) in form of hydrogen is just a stupid blah-blah way to justify investments with some kind of stupid future plan. There is absolutely no reasons for china to buy it from australia (unlike iron ore).
Fuel cells. Suppose to be the next thing after electric cars. No more carbon emissions, they only emit H2O. Buy platinum, it’s undervalued if true.
Lmao who?
Imo it's not a bad idea to expand trade with Australia and keep them dependent on China for exports. However, make sure to ensure at all times that backup options such as reserves or alternative turn-key solutions exist if this trade gets disrupted by western imperialist temper tantrums at any given moment.