Published name
Question 2.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed eligibility requirements. Are there any other eligibility requirements the Program should consider?
It sounds right.
Question 2.2: Does a minimum deployment size of 50 MW seem appropriate for the Program?
A 50 MW capacity will produce less than a ton of hydrogen per hour.
for a production capacity factor of 50% it produces around 10 Tonnes per day. This is not big enough to establish an export industry. However, it is bigger than the domestic offtake for the next few years due to lack of infrastructure.
Hence, I think the size should be a bit more flexible.
Question 2.3: Are there benefits to considering a suite of project sizes, with large and smaller scale projects (for example less than 50MW) being eligible?
Yes.
Question 2.4: Are there benefits to considering projects that may only have scale if aggregated across multiple, but related sites?
Yes. For example; implementing a 1 MW or more electrolysers in 50 or more remote homeland communities and/or remote mine sites will have more impact on the hydrogen industry development in Australia.
Question 2.5: Other international schemes have sought to implement additional requirements of the renewable energy used in hydrogen projects such as new-build or time matched renewable energy. Please provide your views on any additional requirements the Government should consider for the Program in relation to renewable energy?
I believe, it should consider implementing additional requirements of the renewable energy used in hydrogen projects such as new-build or time matched renewable energy. This can accelerate the net zero-emissions by 2050.
Question 2.6: Some international schemes have limitations on proposed end uses of hydrogen such as the UK scheme which specifically excludes gas blending. Should any limitations be placed on the end uses eligible for the Program?
Gas blending is a promising pathway to reduce emissions; however, it should be the last preferred offtake.
Question 2.7: Other international schemes consider both export and domestic use of hydrogen as eligible while others specifically exclude export projects. How should the Program consider projects with proposed export offtake and the extent to which this export offtake may support the development of an Australian hydrogen industry or other additional benefits to Australia?
I think it should consider both Domestic and export to build the capacity.
Question 2.8: The proposed GO Scheme will be used to support the verification of hydrogen production. Are there projects where this would not be suitable? Should the Program apply a maximum emissions intensity for hydrogen production on a project lifecycle basis?
Yes, it should the Program apply a maximum emissions intensity for hydrogen production on a project lifecycle basis.
Question 4.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed funding mechanism.
Sounds good!
Question 4.2: Are there other design features or structures for the proposed Program that you think could be more impactful or efficient to catalyse large scale hydrogen production in Australia?
The hydrogen storage technologies are missing.
Question 4.3: How should the Program treat additional Commonwealth or State Government funding or other support for the same project?
It should be detected of this fund agreement.
Question 4.4: How should the Program treat a project that has been able to attract international government investment such as that under H2Global? How can the Program best leverage this support?
Shares must be determined.
Questions 4.5: How should the HPC consider inflation?
it could be an agreed fixed percentage with ability to adjust if big changes happen.
Question 5.1: Other international schemes have varying upside sharing arrangements such as the UK scheme which requires projects to share 90% of upside back to the Government. Please provide your views on the proposed upside sharing arrangements for the Program, including with reference to the methodology for sharing upside (a reduction in the HPC).
Quite right.
Question 5.2: Please provide any additional feedback on the proposal for recipients to repay Government support in the event the market price increases materially during the 10-year period.
As in Q 5.1. above plus the proposed to repay the previous year fund.
Question 6.1: Do you think the Program should include volume risk support? If so, why?
Yes, to reduce uncertainty of the offtake volume due to unforeseen circumstances and/or technical challenges.
Question 6.2: If volume risk support is required, what is the preferred structuring of the mechanism?
the project owners apply, assessed by the Australian Government agency and make a dicission.
Question 7.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed payment frequency and term.
Sound quite right.
Question 9.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed merit criteria.
Sounds quite right.
Question 9.2: How should merit criteria be structured or weighted to ensure the success of delivery of hydrogen from projects?
equal.
Question 9.3: Should an applicant be required to have at least a conditional offtake arrangement in place before applying to the Program? What standard should be applied to determine the reliability of such an arrangement?
Yes. The offtake must be moved from MOU to a contract.
Question 9.4: What additional outcomes should be incorporated into the formal merit criteria for the Program in order to deliver broader benefits?
impact on the educational system to train, reskill and/or upskilling programs.
Question 9.5: What other aspects of an export-oriented proposal should be assessed to ensure the Program funds demonstrate tangible benefits to Australians?
the use of the existing skilled workforce and the infrastructure.
Question 9.6: How should emissions abatement calculations consider the different end uses of hydrogen and greenfield vs brownfield facilities?
NGER reporting and the certification scheme.
Question 16.1: Does the timing proposed for the Program appear appropriate? If not, please note in your view an appropriate alternative.
it appears appropriate.
Question 17.1: Do the proposed EOI information requirements seem reasonable? Are there any additional items you would add to the EOI information list, or items that may be subject to different interpretations / challenging to provide?
No.
Question 17.2: Do the proposed Full Application information requirements seem reasonable? Are there any additional items you would add to the Full Application information list?
No.
Question 18: Is there any additional feedback you would like to provide that has not been covered in the above questions?
No.
