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 would not hurt to have the eligibility requirements open to adding new considerations as they emerge.
Something very relevant to achieving the goals of this program may get developed and deployed in the near future.
Things are changing very fast in this nascent industry as anyone involved in it can attest.
It would be good to know that we have options in accessing the most optimum solutions in line with the latest technologies available.
Question 2.2: Does a minimum deployment size of 50 MW seem appropriate for the Program?
YES
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?
Most definately.
Having a wider range of projects then allows for more options to apply the production data gathered.
This then means faster transference of deployable solutions that can be applied to various commercial project requirements.
Question 2.4: Are there benefits to considering projects that may only have scale if aggregated across multiple, but related sites?
Yes there are.
Some projects in the future will, no doubt , be aggregated across multiple , but related sites.
Say a community in one area is open to partnerships with another communities.......Why should'nt communities have the mechanisms and means to partner up with other communities ?
If it means that all parties benefit from ultra low-cost clean renewables, as they desire, where they can sell the excess ?
That makes a selling agreement with other communities possible , if desired.
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?
Australian Govt , I believe , has initiated a point of origin program already.
Is there anything in the Program that takes into account miles travelled for deliver of the Green Hydrogen or any other green H2 , green Fuel derivative?
Travel miles can , of course , be offset by using green fuels and that means green fuel powered sea trade.
Useful for consumer info.
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?
No , no limitations should be placed on the end uses eligible for the Program.
If it contributes to decarbonising the economy in significant ways , why exclude that by imposing a limitation on a viable option?
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?
How can you assess the suitability of international schemes .....that are not even producing any green Hydrogen at scale currently ?
In my opinion , Australia should focus on its advantages to deploy bulk ultra low-cost generation. Make it cheap at massive scale before others do because once its done elsewhere , what happens to the many investments in Australia that cannot compete on cost of production ?
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?
I do not have an opinion about the first part regarding projects that might not be suitable for the proposed GO Scheme but if the data of the project life cycle can be gathered and compiled in easily accessible format .......that's not not useful.
Question 4.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed funding mechanism.
Is there an avenue where members of the public can ask assistance to understand the mechanism in more detail ?
face to face and then directly give feedback after getting more understanding.
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?
Adjust Caps on small scale local production so that farms can make ROI faster
Maybe , funding could be calibrated according to scale , degree of renewable generation conditions.
Not all areas are the same after all .
Question 4.3: How should the Program treat additional Commonwealth or State Government funding or other support for the same project?
Commonwealth funding should then make a renewables project open to being deployed in another Commonwealth country. If another country in the Commonwealth wants to support with funding , that is welcome is'nt it ?
Are there restrictions on States funding or supporting projects in other States for the same project ?
I don't know.
How should the Program treat additional funds ? With interest and open to more support as that contributes to building partnerships.
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?
Better level to discuss mutually beneficial outcomes that can be leveraged for other additional trade development.
Questions 4.5: How should the HPC consider inflation?
Have it indexed and excluded at the same time and then you have a better idea on price comparisons between a various fixed points. Shows the effect of inflation ----with and without.
It would be useful to consumers , in general , as well because this is a tool that can be used to inform household budgets.
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 a lot of uncertainty associated with reliability and efficiency of renewables generation.
Fine if there are no extraordinary events but that is unlikely given climate change having set in.
Disruptions and variations to climate need to be designed for .
Consideration should be given to projects that use technologies that are more resistant to fire and flood , in particular , as these are quite prevalent in Australia where renewables might be deployed.
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.
Market Price increases only benefit recipients if they are able to sell the products still.
Question 6.1: Do you think the Program should include volume risk support? If so, why?
It should be included because what is the alternative ? sell a project off for $ 1 if it fails?
At least try to make it useful in some way and if that means some feature covering risk support that is also open to support from State Govt and other parties.
Question 6.2: If volume risk support is required, what is the preferred structuring of the mechanism?
I cannot give an informed reply here.
Question 7.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed payment frequency and term.
Paying back a technology investment should not have a long ROI
If there is , it diminishes the enthusiasm for small private investments in small renewables projects.
Question 9.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed merit criteria.
no opinion
Question 9.2: How should merit criteria be structured or weighted to ensure the success of delivery of hydrogen from projects?
All of the above
Ultra low-cost renewables generation would address the need for alternative sources of water.
Many flow on benefits and positive outcomes from this.
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
Standard to be developed after a period---to be determined by parties ---of reliability of supply.
Question 9.4: What additional outcomes should be incorporated into the formal merit criteria for the Program in order to deliver broader benefits?
a calibration to specific cost tiers
Cost of generation specifically ...How cheap is your renewables ?
Question 9.5: What other aspects of an export-oriented proposal should be assessed to ensure the Program funds demonstrate tangible benefits to Australians?
I'm not sure what the scope of this question is and would need to sit down and discuss.
Question 9.6: How should emissions abatement calculations consider the different end uses of hydrogen and greenfield vs brownfield facilities?
By having those comparisons , its helping to inform consumers
Inform consumers better , drive more demand
Question 16.1: Does the timing proposed for the Program appear appropriate? If not, please note in your view an appropriate alternative.
Would have been nice to see this 2 yrs ago but there was a different Govt at the time.
No appropriate alternative . Australia is playing catch up ad there is only one alternative at this point ; to catch up.
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?
Reasonable
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?
Reasonable
Question 18: Is there any additional feedback you would like to provide that has not been covered in the above questions?
None that come to mind atm
