Hydrogen import pathway comparison framework incorporating cost and social preference: Case studies from Australia to Japan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent proposals to produce and import hydrogen from Australia to Japan for electricity generation raise questions about how to compare the costs and feasibilities of different hydrogen import pathways. This paper establishes a framework for the comparison of technological, economic, and social costs and feasibility. The framework is then applied to 3 potential production and import case studies. First, a benchmark case study is considered which uses Australian brown coal from the Latrobe Valley combined with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The second and third comparative case studies use renewable energy and electrolysis near port facilities in Karratha, Western Australia, using solar power exclusively as the renewable energy source, and Gladstone, Queensland, using a combination of onshore wind and solar-based generation. The study finds that comparative pilot project generation costs for the brown coal pathway are between approximately 5.9 and 15.4 yen/kWh cheaper than for solar and/or wind-based pathways. However, limitations of scaling up CCS, a limited brown coal supply, long-term reducing costs of renewables, and the prospect to develop complementary renewable infrastructure make a strong counterargument for investment in solar and wind pathways as an alternative to brown coal and CCS.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2374-2391
Number of pages18
JournalInternational Journal of Energy Research
Volume41
Issue number14
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Lignite
Carbon capture
Hydrogen
Costs
Electrolysis
Solar energy
Electricity
Economics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Nuclear Energy and Engineering
  • Fuel Technology
  • Energy Engineering and Power Technology

Cite this

@article{afb76bf607064493bac940767dc63206,
title = "Hydrogen import pathway comparison framework incorporating cost and social preference: Case studies from Australia to Japan",
abstract = "Recent proposals to produce and import hydrogen from Australia to Japan for electricity generation raise questions about how to compare the costs and feasibilities of different hydrogen import pathways. This paper establishes a framework for the comparison of technological, economic, and social costs and feasibility. The framework is then applied to 3 potential production and import case studies. First, a benchmark case study is considered which uses Australian brown coal from the Latrobe Valley combined with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The second and third comparative case studies use renewable energy and electrolysis near port facilities in Karratha, Western Australia, using solar power exclusively as the renewable energy source, and Gladstone, Queensland, using a combination of onshore wind and solar-based generation. The study finds that comparative pilot project generation costs for the brown coal pathway are between approximately 5.9 and 15.4 yen/kWh cheaper than for solar and/or wind-based pathways. However, limitations of scaling up CCS, a limited brown coal supply, long-term reducing costs of renewables, and the prospect to develop complementary renewable infrastructure make a strong counterargument for investment in solar and wind pathways as an alternative to brown coal and CCS.",
author = "Chapman, {Andrew J.} and Timothy Fraser and Kenshi Itaoka",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1002/er.3807",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "2374--2391",
journal = "International Journal of Energy Research",
issn = "0363-907X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "14",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hydrogen import pathway comparison framework incorporating cost and social preference

T2 - Case studies from Australia to Japan

AU - Chapman, Andrew J.

AU - Fraser, Timothy

AU - Itaoka, Kenshi

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Recent proposals to produce and import hydrogen from Australia to Japan for electricity generation raise questions about how to compare the costs and feasibilities of different hydrogen import pathways. This paper establishes a framework for the comparison of technological, economic, and social costs and feasibility. The framework is then applied to 3 potential production and import case studies. First, a benchmark case study is considered which uses Australian brown coal from the Latrobe Valley combined with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The second and third comparative case studies use renewable energy and electrolysis near port facilities in Karratha, Western Australia, using solar power exclusively as the renewable energy source, and Gladstone, Queensland, using a combination of onshore wind and solar-based generation. The study finds that comparative pilot project generation costs for the brown coal pathway are between approximately 5.9 and 15.4 yen/kWh cheaper than for solar and/or wind-based pathways. However, limitations of scaling up CCS, a limited brown coal supply, long-term reducing costs of renewables, and the prospect to develop complementary renewable infrastructure make a strong counterargument for investment in solar and wind pathways as an alternative to brown coal and CCS.

AB - Recent proposals to produce and import hydrogen from Australia to Japan for electricity generation raise questions about how to compare the costs and feasibilities of different hydrogen import pathways. This paper establishes a framework for the comparison of technological, economic, and social costs and feasibility. The framework is then applied to 3 potential production and import case studies. First, a benchmark case study is considered which uses Australian brown coal from the Latrobe Valley combined with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The second and third comparative case studies use renewable energy and electrolysis near port facilities in Karratha, Western Australia, using solar power exclusively as the renewable energy source, and Gladstone, Queensland, using a combination of onshore wind and solar-based generation. The study finds that comparative pilot project generation costs for the brown coal pathway are between approximately 5.9 and 15.4 yen/kWh cheaper than for solar and/or wind-based pathways. However, limitations of scaling up CCS, a limited brown coal supply, long-term reducing costs of renewables, and the prospect to develop complementary renewable infrastructure make a strong counterargument for investment in solar and wind pathways as an alternative to brown coal and CCS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022339483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85022339483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/er.3807

DO - 10.1002/er.3807

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85022339483

VL - 41

SP - 2374

EP - 2391

JO - International Journal of Energy Research

JF - International Journal of Energy Research

SN - 0363-907X

IS - 14

ER -