<p>There is significant interest in Australia, both federally and at the state level, to develop a hydrogen production industry. Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, recently prepared a briefing paper for the COAG Energy Council outlining a road map for hydrogen. It identifies hydrogen has the potential to be a significant source of export revenue for Australia in future years, assist with decarbonising Australia’s economy and could establish Australia as a leader in low emission fuel production. As part of the ongoing investigations into the hydrogen production potential of Australia, Geoscience Australia has been commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to develop heat maps that show areas with high potential for future hydrogen production. The study is technology agnostic, in that it considers hydrogen production via electrolysis using renewable energy sources and also fossil fuel hydrogen coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The heat maps presented in this work are synthesized from the key individual national-scale datasets that are relevant for hydrogen production. In the case of hydrogen from electrolysis, renewable energy potential and the availability of water are the most important factors, with various infrastructural considerations playing a secondary role. In the case of fossil fuel hydrogen, proximity to gas and coal resources, water and availability of carbon storage sites are the important parameters that control the heat maps. In this report we present 5 different heat map scenarios, reflecting different assumptions in the geospatial analysis and also reflecting to some degree the different projected timeframes for hydrogen production. The first three scenarios pertain to renewable energy and hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Differences between the three scenarios depend on whether hydrogen is produced near the coastal areas, where infrastructure and water are not issues or whether hydrogen can be produced in inland areas provided water does become a constraining factor. Assumptions regarding the proximity of a currently connected electrical grid to transport renewable energy also play a large role in the different scenarios. The final two scenarios focus on the potential for fossil fuel hydrogen, coupled with CCS, with the difference between the two scenarios being related to the timeframes for readiness for both fossil fuel production and availability of CO2 storage resources. <p>This dataset includes the raster inputs used for the five scenarios as part of the Prospective hydrogen production regions of Australia report.

Green steel, produced using renewable energy and hydrogen, presents a promising avenue to decarbonize steel manufacturing and expand the hydrogen industry. Australia, endowed with abundant renewable resources and iron ore deposits, is ideally placed to support this global effort. This paper's two-step analytical approach offers the first comprehensive assessment of Australia's potential to develop green steel as a value-added export commodity. The Economic Fairways modelling reveals a strong alignment between prospective hydrogen hubs and current and future iron ore operations, enabling shared infrastructure development and first-mover advantages. By employing a site-based system optimization that integrates both wind and solar power sources, the cost of producing green steel could decrease significantly to around AU$900 per tonne by 2030 and AU$750 per tonne by 2050. Moreover, replacing 1% of global steel production would require 35 GW of well-optimized wind and solar photovoltaics, 16 GW of hydrogen electrolysers, and 1000 square kilometres of land. Sensitivity analysis further indicates that iron ore prices would exert a long-term influence on green steel prices. Overall, this study highlights the opportunities and challenges facing the Australian iron ore industry in contributing to the decarbonization of the global steel sector, underscoring the crucial role of government support in driving the growth and development of the green steel industry. <b>Citation:</b> Wang C et al., Green steel: Synergies between the Australian iron ore industry and the production of green hydrogen, <i>International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,</i> Volume 48, Issue 81, 1 October 2023, Pages 32277-32293, ISSN 0360-3199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.041

There is significant interest in Australia, both federally and at the state level, to develop a hydrogen production industry. Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, recently prepared a briefing paper for the COAG Energy Council outlining a road map for hydrogen. It identifies hydrogen has the potential to be a significant source of export revenue for Australia in future years, assist with decarbonising Australia’s economy and could establish Australia as a leader in low emission fuel production. As part of the ongoing investigations into the hydrogen production potential of Australia, Geoscience Australia has been commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to develop heat maps that show areas with high potential for future hydrogen production. The study is technology agnostic, in that it considers hydrogen production via electrolysis using renewable energy sources and also fossil fuel hydrogen coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The heat maps presented in this work are synthesized from the key individual national-scale datasets that are relevant for hydrogen production. In the case of hydrogen from electrolysis, renewable energy potential and the availability of water are the most important factors, with various infrastructural considerations playing a secondary role. In the case of fossil fuel hydrogen, proximity to gas and coal resources, water and availability of carbon storage sites are the important parameters that control the heat maps. In this report we present 5 different heat map scenarios, reflecting different assumptions in the geospatial analysis and also reflecting to some degree the different projected timeframes for hydrogen production. The first three scenarios pertain to renewable energy and hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Differences between the three scenarios depend on whether hydrogen is produced near the coastal areas, where infrastructure and water are not issues or whether hydrogen can be produced in inland areas provided water does become a constraining factor. Assumptions regarding the proximity of a currently connected electrical grid to transport renewable energy also play a large role in the different scenarios. The final two scenarios focus on the potential for fossil fuel hydrogen, coupled with CCS, with the difference between the two scenarios being related to the timeframes for readiness for both fossil fuel production and availability of CO2 storage resources.

<div>Critical minerals are the minerals and elements essential for modern technologies, economies and national security. However, the supply chains of these minerals may be vulnerable to disruption thereby making the study of these minerals, from source to product, of primary importance. </div><div><br></div><div>The global transition to net-zero emissions is driving accelerated consumption of critical minerals, particularly driven by the increase in demand for technologies such as solar photovoltaics (PV) and semiconductors (Department of Industry, Science and Resources [DISR], 2022; 2023). In parallel, the phasing out of, for example, traditional machinery and manufacturing processes reliant on hydrocarbon resources (Ali et al., 2017; Bruce et al., 2021; International Energy Agency [IEA], 2021; 2023; Skirrow et al., 2013) is further adding to the global demand. High Purity Quartz (HPQ) forms just one of these critical minerals, and is the primary raw material for the production of High Purity Silica (HPS) and Silicon (Si) for use in products ranging from solar PVs to semiconductors. </div><div><br></div><div>The current list of minerals classified as critical is now up to 31 (Department of Industry, Science and Resources [DISR], 2022; 2023). This diversity of critical minerals is also promoting a new focus on the exploration for i) new styles of mineralisation that might host sufficient volumes of critical minerals, and ii) a re-examination of existing minerals systems knowledge in order to help mineral explorers make new discoveries to help support the increasing demand. </div><div><br></div><div>At present, the main global suppliers of HPQ are the United States, Canada, Norway, Brazil, Russia and India (Pan et al., 2022). In Australia, there has been a paucity of exploration and development of HPQ mineral deposits and, despite the potential that Australia holds for the exploration and discovery of potentially significant HPQ occurrences, Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. (Figure 1) represents the only operator currently mining HPQ, and the only manufacturer of high purity silicon in Australia (Simcoa, 2020). </div><div><br></div><div>Australia is well-positioned to incentivise the exploration, discovery and supply of raw materials, and significantly expand onshore silicon production capacity (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2022). Research presented here highlights the opportunity that Australia has in making a positive contribution to meeting the global demand for HPQ required for high-technology applications and the transition to a net zero economy.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div>Abstract presented at the 2024 Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar (AGES)

There is significant interest in Australia, both federally and at the state level, to develop a hydrogen production industry. Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, recently prepared a briefing paper for the COAG Energy Council outlining a road map for hydrogen. It identifies hydrogen has the potential to be a significant source of export revenue for Australia in future years, assist with decarbonising Australia’s economy and could establish Australia as a leader in low emission fuel production. As part of the ongoing investigations into the hydrogen production potential of Australia, Geoscience Australia has been commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to develop heat maps that show areas with high potential for future hydrogen production. The study is technology agnostic, in that it considers hydrogen production via electrolysis using renewable energy sources and also fossil fuel hydrogen coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The heat maps presented in this work are synthesized from the key individual national-scale datasets that are relevant for hydrogen production. In the case of hydrogen from electrolysis, renewable energy potential and the availability of water are the most important factors, with various infrastructural considerations playing a secondary role. In the case of fossil fuel hydrogen, proximity to gas and coal resources, water and availability of carbon storage sites are the important parameters that control the heat maps. In this report we present 5 different heat map scenarios, reflecting different assumptions in the geospatial analysis and also reflecting to some degree the different projected timeframes for hydrogen production. The first three scenarios pertain to renewable energy and hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Differences between the three scenarios depend on whether hydrogen is produced near the coastal areas, where infrastructure and water are not issues or whether hydrogen can be produced in inland areas provided water does become a constraining factor. Assumptions regarding the proximity of a currently connected electrical grid to transport renewable energy also play a large role in the different scenarios. The final two scenarios focus on the potential for fossil fuel hydrogen, coupled with CCS, with the difference between the two scenarios being related to the timeframes for readiness for both fossil fuel production and availability of CO2 storage resources. This dataset includes the five scenario raster outputs as produced as part of the Prospective hydrogen production regions of Australia report.

Geoscience Australia has conducted a feasibility analysis on underground gas/hydrogen storage (UGS/UHS) through creating salt caverns in the offshore Polda Basin, South Australia. The Mercury structure in the offshore part of the Polda Basin has massive halite deposits in the Neoproterozoic Kilroo Formation at depth intervals of 1376.8–2383.8 mSS (mSS: depth (m) below mean sea level) (salt pillows), 2383.8–2538.8 mSS and 2807.8–3083.8 mSS (salt interbeds). The halite is distributed over 217 km2 approximately 20 km N-S and approximately 20 km E-W, forming an anticlinal structure near Mercury 1 well. Well data (Mercury 1) suggests the total net thickness of halite is up to 1000 m over the lower Kilroo Formation and 468 m above 2000 mSS, which is within the depth range considered suitable for UHS. The potential storage site analysed is located approximately 50-70 km offshore, west of the Eyre Peninsula and approximately 200 km from Port Lincoln. The lower thermal gradient (cold basin) observed, and overburden and formation fracture gradients, are favourable for salt cavern design. The 1376.8–1539.8 mSS and 1575.6–2367.6 mSS halite intervals in Mercury 1 were identified as potential candidates for cavern creation in the future UHS program. A conceptual design of a halite cavern is presented for the depth range of 1650–2000 mSS. The cylindrical halite cavern is evaluated for two diameters (60 m and 100 m) with the calculated hydrogen storage capacity of approximately 240 GWh and 665 GWh (equivalent to approximately 7200 and 20000 tonnes), respectively. Potentially multiple halite caverns could be built within the thick halite deposits of the Mercury structure. Compared to one of Australia’s non-hydrocarbon energy storage resources currently under construction (Snowy 2.0 hydropower) at 350 GWh, UHS within a halite cavern in the offshore Polda Basin provides an alternative for large-scale energy storage that is potentially quicker to build, has less environmental footprints and is not impacted by drought.

Geoscience Australia and Monash University have produced a series of renewable energy capacity factor maps of Australia. Solar photovoltaic, concentrated solar power, wind (150 metre hub height) and hybrid wind and solar capacity factor maps are included in this dataset. All maps are available for download in geotiff format. Solar Photovoltaic capacity factor map The minimum capacity factor is <10% and the maximum is 25%. The map is derived from Bureau of Meteorology (2020) data. The scientific colour map is sourced from Crameri (2018). Concentrated Solar Power capacity factor map The minimum capacity factor is 52% and the maximum is 62%. The map is derived from Bureau of Meteorology (2020) data. Minimum exposure cut-off values used are from International Renewable Energy Agency (2012) and Wang (2019). The scientific colour map is sourced from Crameri (2018). Wind (150 m hub height) capacity factor map The minimum capacity factor is <15% and the maximum is 42%. The map is derived from Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (2015) and DNV GL (2016) data. The scientific colour map is sourced from Crameri (2018). Hybrid Wind and Solar capacity factor maps Nine hybrid wind and solar maps are available, divided into 10% intervals of wind to solar ratio (eg. (wind 40% : solar 60%), (wind 50% : solar 50%), (wind 60% : solar 40%) etc.). The maps show the capacity factor available for electrolysis. Wind and solar plants might be oversized to increase the overall running time of the hydrogen plant allowing the investor to reduce electrolyser capital expenditures for the same amount of output. Calculations also include curtailment (or capping) of excess electricity when more electricity is generated than required to operate the electrolyser. The minimum and maximum capacity factors vary relative to a map’s specified wind to solar ratio. A wind to solar ratio of 50:50 produces the highest available capacity factor of 64%. The maps are derived from Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (2015), DNV GL (2016) and Bureau of Meteorology (2020) data. The scientific colour map is sourced from Crameri (2018). See the ‘Downloads' tab for the full list of references. Disclaimer The capacity factor maps are derived from modelling output and not all locations are validated. Geoscience Australia does not guarantee the accuracy of the maps, data, and visualizations presented, and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Capacity factor values shown in the maps should not be relied upon in an absolute sense when making a commercial decision. Rather they should be strictly interpreted as indicative. Users are urged to exercise caution when using the information and data contained. If you have found an error in this dataset, please let us know by contacting clientservices@ga.gov.au. This dataset is published with the permission of the CEO, Geoscience Australia.