SA Election 2022: Labor names Whyalla as site of $593m hydrogen power plan to generate thousands of jobs

Whyalla has been nominated as the site for Labor’s proposed hydrogen power plant – a centrepiece of the ALP economic policy.

Labor has nominated the steel city of Whyalla as the site for its $593m hydrogen power station, arguing the government-owned and operated plant would drive new jobs and industry for the state.

In an election campaign switch from health to economic policy, Labor Leader Peter Malinauskas labelled the proposed power station a “significant asset for our state” that would generate more than 11,000 jobs by kickstarting renewable energy and hydrogen export industries.

Labor did not pinpoint a site within the upper Spencer Gulf city but said, if elected, an expert panel would report within 90 days on the most appropriate land parcel in the Whyalla or Port Bonython area.

The Liberal government, which has claimed a costing error means the Labor hydrogen plant would cost at least $1.07bn, last October short-listed seven hydrogen projects for Port Bonython from national and global firms that were billed as making the state one of the world’s most significant producers of the clean energy source.

Supplied Editorial Fwd: Artist's Impression

Mr Malinauskas has billed the hydrogen jobs plan as a centrepiece of his economic strategy. The plan has three elements: a 200MW power station, hydrogen electrolysers with 250MWe capacity, and a hydrogen storage facility holding two month’s supply, or 3600 tonnes.

“This world-leading hydrogen power plant is part of my vision for South Australia’s future. This isn’t about the next election, but the next generation,” Mr Malinauskas said.

“Whyalla is the perfect location for our hydrogen power station, given its prime location,

proximity to key infrastructure and diverse skills base.

“South Australia already has a strong reputation for leading Australia and the world when it

comes to renewable energy – and this is our next big leap forward.”

Labor will rely on an “expert panel” from nine groups to pinpoint the site. The group will comprise Barngarla people, Whyalla Council, Infrastructure SA, SA Water, SA Power Networks, Environment Protection Authority, along with Energy and Mining and Infrastructure and Transport departments.

This will consider factors including capacity to connect to the national electricity grid, future export potential and existing or proposed private investment in green hydrogen, plus access to water.

Labor leader Peter Malinauskas. Picture: Tricia Watkinson

Labor says the costings have been “independently assessed” by respected firm Frontier Economics but rival Liberal analysis, revealed by The Advertiser last September, finds the project would cost almost double the $593m predicted figure.

When questioned on the additional operational costs, Mr Malinalskus danced around any specific figure, simply insisting the facility will “deliver a return to taxpayers.”

Mr Malinauskas said that the “long term ambition” of Labor’s hydrogen facility is export.

However, Infrastructure SA’s 2021 Capital Intentions Statement suggests “a critical piece of infrastructure” will be “required to enable this outcome”, infrastructure which Labor has not outlined.

According to the ISA document South Australia has “several potentially favourable hydrogen exports sites; however, none of these currently host the infrastructure required to enable hydrogen exports. This is a key constraint to the development of a clean hydrogen export industry in South Australia.”

Treasurer Rob Lucas on Monday accused Mr Malinauskas of a reckless spending spree by deploying health and other promises already costing more than $3bn in total, declaring Labor’s “unprecedented” spending “the single biggest risk to our state’s finances and our economic recovery”.

Whyalla steelworks operator GFG Alliance executive chairman Sanjeev Gupta, a major proponent of green steel made using hydrogen rather than coal, last November said future hydrogen users would need to be co-located with the fuel’s source because shipping it was “too expensive, too dangerous and it just won’t happen”.