Theo Theophanous: Nuclear energy the key to unlocking Australia’s hydrogen dreams

Australia can be a world leader in using hydrogen to green the production of steel and aluminium, but a cutting-edge project in the US shows nuclear needs to be a part of the mix to make it feasible.

As a former Labor energy minister who has supported the introduction of nuclear power alongside strong action on renewables, I despair at the simplistic, binary pro-nuclear/antinuclear stances of the major parties.

Voters are asked to buy Labor’s argument that Australia can achieve net zero by 2050 with renewables and battery-hydro back-up alone.

Liberals argue that we need nuclear to achieve this outcome.

Labor points to the many advances and reduced cost of renewable energy.

Liberals point to the 32 developed nations now committed to nuclear and Australia’s competitive advantage with one third of the world’s uranium.

Labor claims nuclear is the most expensive, while Liberals claim Labor is not including the full cost of renewables with back-up and transmission costs in its calculations.

The Liberal proposal is criticised as a way of keeping coal stations running while Labor is criticised for high energy prices with its renewables-only approach.

The debate seems at a stalemate.

A nuclear power plant in Canada. Picture: James MacDonald

Call me naive, but I hope a bipartisan position on nuclear can be reached within a broader energy consensus in the national interest.

Let me explain.

The major parties do agree on the need to support Australian manufacturing, and both have criticised Donald Trump’s tariffs on our steel and aluminium.

But the greatest challenge to these industries is not Trump’s tariffs — it’s how to produce green steel and green aluminium to secure their future.

Labor had great hopes of greening these industries by producing hydrogen from water.

Many projects have been proposed, but even with substantial promised government funding they have failed – including Central Queensland Hydrogen, Origin Energy’s hub, AGL’s and Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue projects, and Whyalla and Port Pirie projects.

This is because of the engineering and commercial difficulties in building large-scale electrolysers powered by massive amounts of renewable energy to produce hydrogen from water for green steel and aluminium production.

Nuclear has an advantage in that it can generate carbon-free heat to green these industries.

Far less energy is required to produce hydrogen from water, if the water can be heated before being put through an electrolyser to remove the hydrogen molecules.

Nuclear can efficiently produce hydrogen through a cogeneration system where the reactor provides heated water up to 700C and electricity for a high-temperature electrolyser.

Andrew Forrest is bullish on the future role of hydrogen. Picture: Adrian Dennis

This is not just theoretical.

At Prairie Island, Minnesota in the US a high-temperature electrolyser using heat from a nuclear reactor is under development.

The company behind the project, Bloom Energy, says the process produces superheated water, giving the electrolyser incredibly high efficiency and reducing the cost of green hydrogen.

Japan’s Atomic Energy Agency is proposing a hydrogen production facility adjacent to a nuclear reactor near Tokyo.

Heat from the reactor would travel down a pipe as heated helium and thermochemically break down water into clean hydrogen, with minimal electricity use.

Nuclear is an efficient way to produce hydrogen for green steel, and the process can also be used in the smelting, refining and recycling processes for aluminium.

In Australia it would involve placing a high-temperature electrolyser next to nuclear power stations to efficiently produce green hydrogen.

Australia and the world cannot afford to give up on green steel and aluminium.

Steel production worldwide produces 11 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions, amounting to 3.6 gigatons, while the aluminium industry produces 1.1 gigatons.

The energy debate in Australia seems to be at a stalemate. Picture: Brook Mitchell

If Australia wants to green its industrial processes in steel, aluminium and cement, we cannot rule out nuclear as a carbon-free source of electricity, heat and hydrogen.

To get anywhere near consensus, the Liberals must stare down their climate-denying Right by agreeing to closure timelines for coal power stations and commit to more renewables, with gas back-up, to ensure coal generation ends.

Labor, on the other hand, would have to reject the green Left’s hysterical, economically damaging opposition to nuclear power and gas as a transition fuel.

Labor should recognise that many of its supporters have moved past the vocal minority stuck in the 1980s antinuclear movement and still mouthing outdated cries a la Peter Garrett.

A bipartisan energy policy is not out of reach if the parties take a realistic approach to the challenges of reaching net zero and greening our industrial processes.

Despite election rhetoric, they have already converged in recognising that gas should play a major role as a transition fuel, and despite Greens objections are supporting gas exploration and extraction.

Bipartisanship would require the parties to agree on a timetable to close coal stations, action on renewables, acceptance of gas as a transition fuel and the introduction of nuclear for base load and back-up power plus the heat and power to produce hydrogen for green steel and aluminium.

Theo Theophanous is a former Victorian energy minister

Originally published as Theo Theophanous: Nuclear energy the key to unlocking Australia’s hydrogen dreams