 Well, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Ken Baldwin. I'm Director of the Energy Change Institute at the Australian National University and welcome to our webinar this afternoon, which will be the public forum on how do we certify the amount of carbon embedded in hydrogen fuels. We have a panel of experts ready to present in a few minutes. We might just wait until most people are now joining us. But let me start off by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and in our case, that's the Ngunnawal people here in Canberra and pay our respects to their elders past, present and future. So just to give you a bit of background about today's webinar and a few housekeeping rules, we have, as I said, a panel of experts who will present their perspective on the various aspects of certifying carbon in hydrogen fuels. They will have an opportunity to do that over roughly 10 or 15 minutes each. And following that, we will have a discussion amongst the panel members about a few questions that arise from their presentation. And then we'll open up the entire proceedings to you, the audience, to ask your questions of the panel members, and we will then finish that at around about 5.30 or so. So if you would like to ask a question, we have an opportunity to do that for you using the question and answer panel. You can see that down at the bottom of your screen. So I'd encourage you to go on there and to ask your questions as we're going along. And then we will select a number of questions to answer for the panel in the last part of the webinar. So welcome, everybody. I can see that more people are joining us. So I might now just give a quick introduction of our panel members, and I'll talk about each of them individually, of course, as they come on, but we have a panel of experts this afternoon to talk about our topic, which is how do we certify the amount of carbon embedded in hydrogen fuels? We would like to welcome this afternoon Rebecca Thompson from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and in particular, from the Hydrogen Task Force there, which is looking at certification, amongst many other things, on the way to Australia participating in the hydrogen economy down the track. From the ANU, we have Dr Emma Asput, and in particular Emma is a member of the ANU Grand Challenge, Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia Pacific, and is the Associate Director Research of that Grand Challenge. We also have Penelope Howarth from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who is actually on secondment to the Grand Challenge, where Emma and I also work. And Penelope will be talking to us about particular aspects of ammonia as a hydrogen fuel. And then last but certainly not least, we have Dr John Soderbaum from ASIL Allen Consulting, and John will be bringing an industry perspective to this entire question. So that's our panel, and we will hear from them in that order. So first of all, I'd like to start by introducing Rebecca. So Rebecca Thompson has, as I said, a role in the hydrogen strategy team at the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and she's the project lead on hydrogen certification, having worked in the team for a little bit over a year now, and having had previous roles in climate change and energy policy, including early work on the long term climate strategy, the safeguard mechanism on the renewable energy target, and in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. So welcome, Rebecca, and you now have the opportunity to tell us about the thinking around hydrogen and other hydrogen fuel certification from the perspective of the hydrogen strategy team in your department. OK, thanks, Ken. And thanks for the opportunity to speak here today. As Ken said, I'll be speaking to you about the work that the Australian government is doing on hydrogen certification. Did you have my sides, Ken? Hot desking, I see. Yep. Otherwise, I could just talk. That's OK. OK, here we go. OK, so, yeah, as I said, speaking to you about the work the Australian government is doing on hydrogen certification. And if we can move to the next slide. OK, so I thought I'd just begin with explaining why we need a certification scheme. What is it? I guess we're all interested in hydrogen because it has potential as a low emissions fuel and it can be used in place of fossil fuels in a range of applications to reduce emissions. It reduces no carbon emissions when it's used, but there can be emissions associated with its production. Most hydrogen is produced today using natural gas and water, which results in emissions. But if it's produced through electrolysis using renewable electricity, then no emissions are released. And if it's produced from a fossil fuel and these emissions are captured at a high level and permanently stored, then we can substantially reduce the emissions and the hydrogen can be considered clean. So these clean methods for producing hydrogen are currently more expensive than the traditional methods. So if consumers are interested in hydrogen for its potential as a clean fuel and are prepared to pay more for the clean fuel, then they want some level of assurance that it is clean. And so a certification scheme is a way of providing a consistent and accurate approach to measuring the emissions associated with hydrogen production and giving consumers the assurance that they need. On to the next slide, please. OK, the development of a certification scheme is a key action agreed by Australian government in the National Hydrogen Strategy, which was released last year. And the strategy sets out a broad approach to certification. It recognises that a globally consistent scheme would be ideal and suggests that Australia should seek to take a lead role in the development of an international scheme. And any Australian domestic scheme should build on or harmonise with international schemes. The strategy proposed that we could initially develop a simple scheme that verifies and tracks production technology and in line with the technology neutral approach in the strategy or production technologies would be considered. And it would also track carbon emissions and production location. This could be built on over time. This approach to certification means that we do not need to set definitions of green or low emission hydrogen. Rather countries could set their own definition with reference to agreed international standards. On to the next slide, please. So the Australian government has been working both internationally and domestically on the development of a certification scheme. On the international side, we've been participating in the international partnership for hydrogen and fuel cells in the production analysis task force. That's a bit of a mouthful. We'll call it IPHE for short. And this seems to be the main international forum where hydrogen certification is being discussed or among governments anyway. IPHE has around 21 members or two. And on this task force, most of the main players are represented, including France, Japan, Korea, Germany, the USA and the EU, among others. This task force is aiming to describe a methodology to assess the emissions associated with hydrogen production by the second quarter of 2021. But obviously a full international standard would take some time to develop after this. On to the next slide, please. So on the domestic front, we've been consulting with the Australian industry to understand what industry would like from a scheme. And this includes through a survey released in June, which was followed up by a workshop that we held just last week. And from the survey, we've heard that stakeholders want a scheme that ideally starts pretty soon. 68% wanted a scheme by 2022. And they also wanted a scheme that is aligned or consistent with approaches taken internationally. So around 75% of stakeholders thought an international scheme is more important, or that an international and domestic schemes are equally important. However, there might be trade-offs between these two objectives, between acting quickly and achieving international alignment. Other schemes, other themes coming from the survey were that stakeholders want a scheme that transparently and accurately accounts for emissions associated with hydrogen production. They want a scheme that's simple and aligned through the existing frameworks. And they want a scheme that's credible, trusted and has provision for independent verification. On to the next slide, please. All right. Now getting into some of the design features of a scheme. And the first one is defining the boundary. Boundaries refer to the part of the hydrogen value chain that we're seeking to certify. And this determines the emissions coverage of the certification scheme. The diagram I've put on is one you might see more than once this afternoon. But that's okay. It might take you a while. But basically it shows the various choices that could be made regarding boundaries. At the broadest end of the spectrum, you could count everything. You could have a full life cycle view of the system where you would count everything from the emissions embodied in the capital equipment used to make the hydrogen, the emissions associated with production through each other and use and even disposal of the product. Or you could take a narrow view and just talk about the emissions occurring at the production facility. Basically, the smaller the boundary, the easier it is to manage and do. But the larger boundary provides a more complete picture of the carbon footprint. Certify, which is the leading scheme, hydrogen certification scheme at the moment in Europe takes a well-to-get approach. And this includes emissions associated with any fossil fuel extraction, transport of these fossil fuels, and the emissions associated with producing them. And this includes the carbon footprint. Transport of these fossil fuels and the emissions associated with producing the hydrogen. And in this diagram, that shows first three things within that first box. Through our survey, around a quarter of respondents indicated some appetite for system boundaries that were beyond well-to-gate. So maybe life cycle emissions or including that next transport and distribution step. But there also seems to be a fair amount of support both domestically and internationally for taking well-to-gate as a starting point. As this is very important, this is relatively easy to do. What else we need to cover and how quickly is under consideration? But Australian stakeholders have noted the importance of certifying energy carriers, particularly ammonia. So these might need to be considered in parallel. And Penn has a whole presentation for you on ammonia so she can explain what I mean here in more detail. Onto the next slide, please. So once we've worked out the boundary, we need to agree on some methods for accounting for example. We need to agree on some methods for accounting for emissions within the boundary. And we have some existing frameworks that we could draw on here such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System or ENGAS for short. And through the survey we heard a pretty strong preference for aligning with our existing frameworks with around 40% of respondents expressing interest in aligning with ENGAS. Certifiers based on international ISO standards that relate to environmental management and the carbon prits of products. And these are slightly different to ENGAS but we can probably work to align them. Onto the next slide, please. Other considerations raised through submissions in the workshop include various options for governance, whether you have a government-led or an industry-led scheme or what are the various roles for government and industry in this work and whether an international body would be involved over time. We should provide additional flexibility by permitting hydrogen producers to offset any remaining emissions with Australian carbon credit units or another similar unit. And the last slide. So where do we go from here? At the moment there doesn't seem to be an international scheme that we could simply join up to. So we need to work out how we balance these objectives of timing, implementing something soon and being compliant. So a way forward could involve sort of starting to develop a domestic scheme that leverages our existing frameworks and tries to make them as consistent as we can with what we know about international schemes as they evolve. This could help to shape international processes however we might need to adjust our approach as global markets evolve over time. The department has engaged energetics to help us develop options for a domestic scheme. This report is due by the end of October. Following this we plan to release a discussion paper around November setting out a proposed approach for comment. We would like to start some trials and methodologies in early 2021 if we can. And we'd envisage these would run for around 12 months. This position is a domestic scheme to start around mid 2022 or early 2023. During this process we would continue to engage internationally with IPAT and other bilateral partners and adjust our approach as necessary. So I guess in summary our approach I think is to start with an approach that is simple and can be built on over time. Thank you. That's my presentation. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Rebecca for say clearly outlining the international context for this discussion and also how Australia's role feeds into this. And of course Australia has an enormous opportunity here as a potential supplier of hydrogen for a number of economies around the world. So we need to be in on the ground for in terms of setting the parameters for a certification scheme in order that that suits our best interest. So thank you very much for making that presentation from the hydrogen strategy teams perspective from the Department of Industry Science So our next speaker is Dr Emma Asbert. Emma is a fellow at the School of Regulation and Global Governance at the College of Asia and Pacific. She's also Associate Director of Research for the ANU Grand Challenge Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia Pacific. So Emma has background in a range of disciplines which is one of the reasons that she's the Associate Director for our Multidisciplinary Team in the Grand Challenge. She has background in economic globalisation, environmental policy developing countries and political economies and was originally an engineer so brings in all of those talents and expertise. She's best known for her work on international investment agreements where she's been working with both academia and in policy development and she's been an invited expert at the OECD and the UN Commission and she's provided policy advice developing countries through the UK Government's TAF2 PASS initiative. So welcome Emma and looking forward to your presentation. Thank you Ken and I can share my own slides to make things a bit easier at your end. So firstly can everyone hear me well enough? Can you see the slides? Yes, no, yes? Okay. Alright, I'll take it away. So I think I'm glad to take this opportunity today to talk about something a little narrower than I think the rest of the panel is talking about but in some sense it's also broader because we're hearing increasingly from the Government this concept of technology neutrality, it's turning up in the hydrogen strategy, it's turning up in the low emissions technology investment roadmap and so I think it's really timely to talk about what technology neutrality actually means and how would that look in the context of a certification scheme for hydrogen fuels. So what is technology neutrality if you look around the academic literature? There's a few different definitions, a lot of them sort of actually referring to formal law. With regard to policy one of the I think most useful definitions is that by Wiley from 2015 and I just realised I should put on slide Joe that technology neutrality means that policy does not favour any particular means of achieving the desired goals. Specifically a policy must equally support all technologies capable of achieving this outcome. And so contrast that with what technology neutrality does not mean. Technology neutral policy does not aim despite I think what a lot of people seem to believe is that all technologies have an equal or fair chance of it succeeding in the market. I think this concept of what a fair competition is, it's something because we know fairness means a different thing in a different context to every different person and I'm going to elaborate on that in a minute. Technology neutral policy also doesn't seek to maximise the number of technologies competing in a market. If there is a clear winner then it lets there be a clear winner but I am to ensure that existing dominant technologies and incumbents maintain their competitive advantage. So to use an analogy let's think about horse race policy so our policy objective is to travel two kilometres on horseback as fast as possible. What would technology neutral policy look like to support that objective? You would provide a flat clean grass track well-functioning starting gates and you would ensure that access to racing silks and jockeys are not a barrier to entry that they're cheap and accessible to all the technologies. Note that the possible outcome of this is that there isn't a lot of horses in this race. It could be through self-selection when everyone is treated equally that only one horse enters. If you're far up and it's the 1930s Melbourne Cup you really if he hadn't been handicapped wouldn't have bothered entering. He wouldn't have bothered paying the entry class. So this is the important thing to note about the difference between technology neutral policy and policy which is trying to keep all technologies in the race. So to further take this analogy at risk too far what would technology bias horse race look like? What we actually did back then and continue to do in the Melbourne Cup you'd actually handicap the best technology if you want by putting weights in a saddle. But there are also a whole lot of ways that you could implicitly bias things. You could for example if I can't remember but let's presume he was the best horse for a clean dry track if you want to tilt the scales a bit away from him or you could do something implicitly bias by soaking the track and making it muddy making the dirty horse have an implicit advantage or if your goal is actually long term like zero emissions by 2050 you could have your goal set at something like 2030 and that would also be implicit bias if your actual goal is 2050 in the analogy for far lack it would be you would decide the winner of the Melbourne Cup based on who was in front of the 1km mark. So what would this policy come out with many different outcomes it's a much less clear outcome because you will have many more horses in the race it might be you will have achieved pushing far lack harder right so that the competition will have made far lack give his absolute best which is often I think what's motivating people to think that more technologies in the race means a better outcome because it does mean that far lack can't sit around eating a hoax and sitting around in his stall all day he's got to train hard he's got to run his heart out but when he does win he may still is likely to have done it slower and he would have had you had a truly technology neutral race set up and even worse you could have an inferior horse winning in a time slower than far lack would have all right so it's not that hard to see the links here to the context of a certification scan right so what is our policy objective according to the Australian National Hydrogen Strategy we want to clean innovative safe and competitive hydrogen fuels industry as Rebecca said the real motivation here is to decarbonize our energy systems right so really my my view of what the objective is is large-scale production of hydrogen fuels which are competitive compatible with decarbonization objectives so what would technology neutral certification policy look like it would provide transparency about both the production technologies and the emissions all the way along the supply chain now we all understand this can get really costly right if you want to get the emissions right down to the 0.1% then there's going to be a trade off here in terms of what's feasible and not too costly and therefore becoming a barrier to entry to the market and what is actually given the information that consumers need so I'm saying 10% here it's something that I think should be open to debate is how precise do we need too much of the emissions to leave out of that global supply chain if we're only looking at certain parts of it and so what's the possible outcome of this it may well be that you get really strong growth in renewable based hydrogen fuels and it may well be that incumbent fossil fuel interests in this country lose out that's an actual possibility that technology neutral policy might actually lead to what would technology buy a certification look like you might have a binary as opposed to just certifying what are the emissions you might define what's clean and what's not clean and you might define clean as something that actually most consumers wouldn't consider clean another thing you might do is you might draw boundaries or scope in a way that includes important components of supply chain emissions even worse you could find your scope in a way that means important components are included for example the emissions associated with electricity for electrolysis and excluded for fossil fuel based for example fugitive emissions from the extraction of the gas that you use to make your hydrogen okay these would actually be quite seriously technology biased policies what is the possible outcome of this sort of policy the renewables based hydrogen production which is ultimately what we're going to need if we're going to get to zero emissions will not move down the cost curve as fast as it otherwise would you're not going to get far like getting to that fishing finishing line as fast as the otherwise would and even worse because you need three times as much gas to produce the hydrogen for the equivalent amount of energy is just burning that gas directly and fugitive emissions are substantive in addition the emissions from producing hydrogen are substantial if they're not captured and stored effectively you could actually end up increasing global emissions in the energy system supposedly trying to produce a lower emission fuel so just to put some numbers behind this and I thank our team particularly Fiona Beck and Razer for doing these great calculations and great diagrams just to put some actual numbers behind this so this is showing some indexed emissions for hydrogen production at different parts of the supply chain I think the really important thing to see here is the size of those feedstock emissions for for gas generated hydrogen okay so if you're leaving out feedstocks because they're scope 3 then you are leaving out the bulk when it comes if you're talking about with serious amounts of carbon capture and storage the bulk of the emissions from that sort of hydrogen production and even compared to SMR from gas without any carbon capture and storage you can see that those feedstocks emissions are about 25% of the total amount so this is actually a certification scan that ignores those potentially classified as scope 3 emissions actually is leaving out a very large fraction of the actual emission from the supply chain here so this is why those boundaries and this is why you're going to keep seeing these boundary diagrams turning up in people's presentations the boundaries of the certification scheme really matter and they definitely have implications for which technologies and indeed which fuels as Penn will talk about have implicit advantage from the certification scheme so in conclusion technology neutrality sounds great and has a lot to be said for if done well however if misunderstood or misapplied it can produce both inefficient and unfair outcomes and as I said evenly this new clean fuel to lead to more emissions than we have currently from using gas itself technology neutral certification properly done will ensure transparency of the substantive emissions all along the supply chain admittedly that is going to be tricky particularly in the timelines that we're talking about so we might need something like a modular approach but we do need very clear to be very clear so that firms can make long-term and medium-term investment decisions about where these schemes are going and that they will include all the substantive parts of the supply chain in the very near future. Thank you Thank you very much Emma and we'll now move on to our next presenter so Penelope Howarth is joining us at the ANU in the Grand Challenge Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia Pacific as a contributor to our research program but Penelope Howarth from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as her workplace so Pen has a long history of contribution to the energy space she was working with APEC the energy working group for a number of years in Singapore and we have benefitted greatly from her experience in joining the Grand Challenge and working on the certification issues surrounding ammonia so Penelope please be welcome and provide your insights on this particular topic and you need to unmute Penelope you need to unmute Thank you Thanks a lot Ross Sorry about that everyone And can you make it full screen Yes I'm working on that There we go Okay I'll take it back So yes as Ken mentioned I'm a research fellow at the ANU's Grand Challenge for the last six months or so and I've been working with quite a considerable team of researchers on ammonia So why are we talking about him? Can you just make your full screen presentation there? That's it So why are we talking about ammonia as everyone I hope knows but just in case when you add nitrogen to hydrogen through a process called the hubbosh process which is quite an old technology we used for over a hundred years you produce ammonia So why would you want to produce ammonia rather than shipping hydrogen to Japan Korea, Germany, wherever Singapore is because hydrogen is quite difficult to store and transport in a stable way it's super cool to something like minus 250 degrees and it's much easier and cheaper to transport ammonia So you can transport hydrogen by converting it to ammonia and then shipping the ammonia So obviously why are we talking about ammonia and hydrogen when obviously there are plenty of other energy sources that have been around a long time and obviously that has to do with the Paris Agreement and general concern about catastrophic climate change and the need to decarbonise the energy system of the world so all countries are working towards that One of the interesting things that I've sort of dropped is that when you burn ammonia or hydrogen say in Japan whether that ammonia or hydrogen was made from fossil fuels in Australia or from renewable energy or from nuclear even no matter what once it's in Japan as ammonia or hydrogen and you burn it it's zero greenhouse gases so it's a great fuel for Japan I guess the question as Emma alluded to is what are the emissions implications for the country producing that new fuel and obviously hydrogen is potentially ammonia can generate greenhouse gases if produced from fossil fuels but of course there are all these definitions out there and there are more and more colours every day than what you're using what's clean, green, blue, grey turquoise even people are talking about these colours and I don't know if they're always talking about the same thing so it depends who you ask what blue is for instance is 60% carbon capture and storage blue or it doesn't need to be 90% or 40% would it include various different technologies depending who you ask so this is background to the research that I've undertaken obviously there will be many buyers and sellers of ammonia and hydrogen in the world economy and the global playing field I guess if we all are talking about the same thing when we talk about what is the price of ammonia or hydrogen per kilogram per ton and there are all these density issues that people talk about so we need to be talking about the same thing and there needs to be a standard kind of price and measurement of price and similarly because the purchase decision is not just about the price for the consumers the consumers will be to one extent or another interested in how many greenhouse gas emissions are produced in this kind of ammonia that I'm buying or hydrogen so having standardised measures of those two particular things are going to be very important to create a global marketplace that's transparent and people can really have confidence in so how do we get there so why do we need to certify I think Rebecca covered that off very well and in more academic speak we talk about an asymmetry of information market failure where if you look at an ammonia molecule under the microscope or a hydrogen one it looks the same regardless of what technology was used to create it so you really need some sort of a certification system so buyers can know how the gas profile is of this particular batch of hydrogen or ammonia that they're buying so in terms of as again Rebecca has mentioned currently the price of low or zero emissions the ammonia or hydrogen is higher than the price of ammonia or hydrogen currently produced through fossil fuel production with no carbon capture and storage and even with carbon capture depending on the technology renewable ammonia may be more expensive at least initially because production of ammonia from and hydrogen from renewable energy is a relatively immature technology it's proven you can do it but it doesn't have the benefits of you know 50 years of having produced ammonia at scale although if you ask YARA which is one of the world's biggest ammonia producers up until I think the 60s all of the ammonia they produced was from renewable energy they claim and they only moved to fossil fuels in response to cheap relatively low price of fossil fuels compared with the renewable resources they had been using until then back to the future for YARA and obviously whatever we do with certification the key thing is that when companies offer that certification to their buyers whether they're in Japan, Germany you know Singapore or Korea or anywhere else the importers need to recognise that certification system and it's going to be interesting if the Saudis are selling their ammonia with a different certification system and you know Norway is selling it with another one and Chile is selling it with another one it's going to be an interesting experience for the potential importers so hence Rebecca's a very important point about international harmonisation and I will just to reference that there is a forthcoming publication that will cover these issues from my ANU which I'm co-authoring we've already seen this very important I find it so helpful visually to be able to look at this and one of the interesting points with ammonia versus hydrogen certification this transportation leg after the point of production if you have to super cool hydrogen to minus 250 degrees celsius to move it safely versus minus 25 degrees for ammonia then surely the transportation leg for hydrogen would be a lot more energy intensive and if your ship is being run on heavy oil as a lot of ships are or LPG or LNG or a green ammonia for that matter it really will make quite a difference in emissions whether you're transporting hydrogen or ammonia so as Emma sort of highlighted the boundaries you choose will advantage certain fuels over others and so it's very important to take a holistic view of the various fuels that are competing for instance biofuels hydrogen, ammonia LNG liquid, organic, hydrogen carriers as well are in the mix so if you've got all those horses running what sort of things can you do to make sure that it's a fair race course for everyone so how do we do it and I think we already had this from Rebecca but what I just want to highlight that the government has pointed out that scope one and scope two carbon emissions are what they're seeking to include not scope three at this stage so and often when I'm talking about hydrogen or ammonia certification people say what about water water is a key input not just electricity to producing ammonia for instance and hydrogen particularly the hydrogen stage and there's a lot of questions about water should be included in the certification scheme so while we've all agreed to I think it's SDG 6 the sustainable development goal to manage water responsibly which is very important for all countries it's not only important for hydrogen as a fuel it's important for all the other fuels that it's competing with as well so that really needs to be taken into account if you're designing water certification system which I suggest might be done separately certainly at this stage emissions and technology and production locations seem to be the three elements everyone can agree on hopefully so I'll hurry up now because I think I'm taking too long and mine obviously emerging not just as a hydrogen carrier you can crack the ammonia back into hydrogen at the destination market such as in Japan and they can put the hydrogen backing into their hydrogen fueled vehicles and just release nitrogen into the atmosphere it's not a greenhouse gas and it's not a big problem but there are people designing fuel cells today that will run ammonia why crack it back when you can just run use the ammonia as ammonia and this is in particular being looked at in Japan for coal co-firing and that's well into demonstration phase there's an agreement between Australian I think it's Woodside and the big Japanese coal power plant owners to co-fire with ammonia that could bring Japan's coal emissions down significantly by 20% even if they co-fire with 20% ammonia so that's quite exciting as like CCS is also obviously a technology everyone's been looking at for a long time for that and shipping fuels are very important and huge market that there are engines being designed today in Europe that run on ammonia and for that matter dual fuel engines with heavy oil or LPG that they could build a ship in a few years time that can run on the fossil fuel for the first five years when the price of ammonia gets low enough they just switch across without having to rebuild the ships engine so that's quite exciting and with ammonia has similar boundary issues with hydrogen as I've mentioned but from differences and very big differences in governance in that you know IPHE is a relatively mature organisation for intergovernmental negotiation they've been talking about hydrogen for I think about 15 years or so they haven't been talking about ammonia very much and there are ammonia focused organisations that have been talking about ammonia for a similar period in particular the ammonia energy association but again also when we talk about hydrogen it's not always clear if we're talking about hydrogen fuels or actually talking about hydrogen so the governance and the momentum is very much around hydrogen the big question is how does that relate to ammonia and the ammonia governance and opportunities so for hydrogen certification some people say we'll just certify the hydrogen and then we'll tack on the ammonia part and Bob's your uncle but others are saying well actually we could just certify the ammonia and have the whole scheme I mean I think obviously hydrogen is a key feedstock for ammonia so having a hydrogen certification system was very helpful for certifying ammonia so finally low embedded emissions ammonia certification industry I think the first power purchase agreement was signed about a month ago for green ammonia out of Saudi Arabia so they have actually got a green ammonia on the international market purchase agreement so there are Australian companies wanting such agreements too and they are asking for ammonia certification to be fast tracked as well and I'm sure that came through with the survey that Rebecca referred to so how could we leverage ammonia focused forums where all the ammonia stakeholders in industry at least and some academics as well have already been meeting for the last 10 years and we are discussing in depth ammonia related issues in particular the ammonia energy association headquarters out of New York and that has an Australian chapter as well as other chapters in other countries so then there is the green ammonia consortium of Japan which is basically an industry led peak body for the Japanese where they are talking with potential sellers maybe in the future there may be new architecture around ammonia that is being adopted by industry or government or do we just integrate ammonia into the hydrogen architecture which I think one has to bear in mind that there are companies backing for instance hydrogen as a shipping fuel and there are other companies backing ammonia as a shipping fuel so what are the implications of the political sort of dynamics in a hydrogen focus body if they are then requested to do ammonia related work so that probably needs to be considered so the geopolitical implications of Australia is supplying ammonia to Asian markets in particular a lot of the hydrogen architecture is quite Eurocentric one could say I know hasn't taken orders in London IPHE correct me if I'm wrong I want to say Paris but it could be Brussels anyway IPHE is also European based organisation with global membership of course but obviously in the case of Australia we have quite a lot of negotiating power in the Asia Pacific and how does that play out within those bodies will be quite interesting especially if for instance I think Singapore is not even a member of IPHE at the moment is what I had heard so you know that's quite interesting they're a key market for us of course potentially bunkering huge amounts of ammonia for international shipping in Singapore and industry are already discussing that with each other the ammonia industry between Singapore and Australia so the boundary implications are quite important as I've mentioned and there are some technical questions about integrated hydrogen and ammonia plants and finally obviously it really while also looking at the similarities between hydrogen and ammonia there are also differences as I mentioned for instance in the transportation emissions intensity potentially of ammonia versus hydrogen so one needs to be quite well informed about those differences when perhaps designing a certification system which is technology neutral in its objective and that's all from me thanks very much for listening sorry for going on so long good thank you Penn now we have our final speaker John Soderbaum so John is well known in the hydrogen community having worked for many years in ASAL Allen as director of science and technology he has a long history of contributing to the hydrogen discussion back in 2003 the Australia national hydrogen study was a project that he was involved in he did a report on Australia's hydrogen export opportunities for arena he worked on the south Australian government screen hydrogen study and presented an issues paper on the injection of hydrogen in the natural gas networks for the national hydrogen strategy task force so welcome John and I'm very interested to hear your perspective thanks Ken let me just see if I can share my screen now make it a slideshow good morning hopefully that's coming up got all good Ken excellent so thank you very much first of all Ken I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in a forum where the women outnumber the men well done to you and the energy change institute for that and that's something that my academy is very strong on and it's good to see it happening so before I start I should make it clear that my presentation is based on a review of publicly available information about you know what industry thinks about hydrogen certification and that's comes from the survey that was mentioned earlier and obviously because of that it doesn't take into account information that might be contained in responses that weren't made public so this means that my numbers might not agree entirely with some of the other numbers because they had access to confidential responses so it's quite a wide variety of responses to the survey and a lot of consultants some users of hydrogen some producers of hydrogen equipment manufacturers of various kinds and some industry associations were quite interested in giving their views and Ken mentioned that hydrogen export opportunities report that I prepared some years a couple of years ago that identified Japan and Korea as two potential markets I mean since then other countries have expressed an interest in Australian hydrogen including Germany Singapore has started its own developing its own hydrogen strategy in fact may have already completed it by now and they were another potential market that we identified in that study so it's probably important when you're thinking about this is to think about well why are countries talking about hydrogen at all well and it's mainly because they want to reduce their emissions because they're trying to meet various targets that have been set and that's pretty much the driver for getting involved in hydrogen at all so knowing what amount of carbon or what amount of emissions is actually embedded in the hydrogen you're buying or using is very important for these countries and we we know that Japan and Korea have both signaled their intention to their longer term intention to only import essentially carbon free hydrogen certification scheme is important for establishing market confidence because it gives for example investors confidence to invest in production facilities that are expensive to build and they need to be confident that somebody's going to buy the hydrogen when it is made it also gives consumers confidence that the hydrogen that they've purchased has a defined and well known amount of carbon sort of attached with it as Penelope pointed out this is the same thing that happens in the case of certifying ammonia or as emissions associated with ammonia production if you're not having a certification scheme more of poorly designed one could actually be quite bad because it could limit our access to markets and that's the last thing that industry would like to see they want to have access to those markets the only existing hydrogen certification scheme so far is this one that's been mentioned the EU scheme it talks about green hydrogen and low carbon hydrogen and it defines that to be around the four and a half kilos of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of hydrogen so that's about half the emissions intensity of hydrogen from steam methane reformation without any CCS without any carbon capture and storage so steam methane reformation is currently the most common way of making hydrogen today so as Rebecca noted in her presentation industry is very keen to get a certification scheme and they want it to be when do we want it? Now basically they want it sooner rather than later and you can see here the sort of list of preferred start years that I was able to identify in the submissions that actually talked about it and also their willingness to wait for a number of years beyond what their preferred start year was and relatively low tolerance for waiting for this scheme to come into effect most people certainly want to do then we're not prepared to have any delay and maybe a year at most there was a strong desire to essentially not miss the boat I think was the sort of way I might sum it up the speed which this is sort of happening or people would like it to happen makes me think to the Australian back to that report the first report I wrote on hydrogen which was back in 2003 and that study the Australian national hydrogen study that recommended that we should have a national hydrogen strategy so it took 16 years for that recommendation to actually be implemented I think I suspect that the certification scheme will come about much faster than that certification is definitely a virtue in this business so what sort of certification scheme did industry want so only 15% of stakeholders identified domestic certification scheme as a priority about a third were more interested in having an international scheme and about half thought that having both was important so the support for domestic scheme was mainly from businesses who saw sales in Australia as their main opportunity and that may be sales of not necessarily hydrogen but equipment for using it or whatever I should add that those saying that two schemes were equally important almost unanimously thought that a single scheme applying both internationally and domestically was the best approach to have although some noted that it might actually be easier to start with the domestic scheme where you don't have to worry about too much about what other international partners are saying and then gradually transition or incorporate a broader international scheme into that scheme have I missed a slide there ah yes so one of the most important features that these respondents or stakeholders identified as being useful to include in a certification scheme so each stakeholder was asked to identify three different items doing that work they felt should be included and this slide shows that some top three rank features listed by the respondents by the priority order so in other words respondents who identify ah items as a first priority they thought that accurately reflecting the carbon content was the most appropriate thing to include in a certification scheme it was just a question of what order respondents referred to them the various speeches in because sometimes the transparency was second and sometimes transparency was first transparency in fact as mentioned by Rebecca is something that features strongly among the priorities technology neutrality as mentioned by Emma was referred to as a positive feature by about 10% of the responses that I read so this slide shows about four features that stakeholders nominated across all those three different levels of priority the top feature there was transparency stakeholders really wanted to know precisely how the certification scheme worked next most commonly mentioned feature was what I call carbon content and nomenclature for this particular desire which really boiled down to industry wanting to have confidence that the scheme would accurately represent the amount of emissions associated with the hydrogen they were buying and in fact several stakeholders also mentioned the importance of at some point including information about the source of water being used to ease of operation or simplicity as mentioned by Rebecca was next followed by compatibility with other schemes in the context of compatibility the respondents were there worried about making sure that the scheme whatever scheme we had in Australia was a consistent across jurisdictions within Australia and also between Australia and other countries overseas so they didn't want to see schemes where jurisdictions differed in their approach which I don't think we're heading down that path but that was just an interesting perspective or important perspective they were also stakeholders were also asked what is the important thing to avoid in a certification scheme so the responses are pretty much a mirror image of the features that they wanted to include so things like complexity or inconsistency with other schemes were mentioned among the most common features that should be avoided Rebecca talked about governance models and whether schemes should be led or industry led there were a few respondents who mentioned a governance not many but a few it was clear that there were concerns around at least in terms of the views that were expressed that I read not letting industry self-regulate ensuring that participation was mandatory establishing an independent body to oversee the scheme and administer it and one stakeholder said it should be that the scheme should have teeth so if you're not following the scheme or not adhering to the requirements then there should be penalties associated with it so what are some of the issues or challenges that I think might be most important what I've cleaned from the relatively limited reading I've done on this topic so one of my previous slides showed that accurately accounting for carbon content of hydrogen was a priority among stakeholders the question is should we be talking about different colours of hydrogen blue, green, purple lots of colours or should we just be talking about kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen the challenge of boundaries I didn't have a boundary slide I could have put a boundary slide in yet again but I thought there's enough coverage of boundaries but yeah that's a tricky one where do you set it how important is to be compared with the EU scheme should we perhaps just focus on what are most likely markets want in other words countries in Asia like Japan and Korea what do they see as important in the scheme I mean after all they are the customers and the customer is always right so which should come first a domestic or international scheme well I sort of think well what would be the scheme what would be the nature of a scheme that was that most helped an Australian hydrogen industry to grow that is after all the objective to get a vibrant and successful innovative hydrogen industry domestic hydrogen industry how do we best do that what sort of scheme best encourages that to happen the fourth challenge is perhaps whether how compatible this idea of having a scheme that happens next year or within the next two years perhaps is that give us enough time to make sure that it is well designed I don't have any answers to these questions but they're interesting things to think about anyway I thank you very much for your attention and thanks again Ken and others for opportunity to participate in this forum today true thank you very much John and thank you to all the panellists we now have an opportunity to move into a bit of a discussion amongst the panel members let me just remind you that you can ask questions in the Q&A panel at the bottom of your screen we'd rather you didn't use the chat because we've got to follow two things then but some of you have already used the chat so we might look at that too but let's go with the Q&A panel they're media present so these discussions may be reported so just be aware of that and we'll try and get through as many questions as we can within the time limit but we could run over a little bit so let's see how we go so I'd like to kick off the discussion by asking a question in the panel so we have the opportunity for hydrogen producers who could be completely standalone they might have a solar and wind farm and battery combination make hydrogen directly and sell it straight into the export market so that's one mode of operation another mode might be there'll be hydrogen plants sitting on the grid they might have power purchase agreements with renewable suppliers or maybe not they might just use an old solar and wind at opportune times maybe purchase a merchant arrangement, who knows but they're connected to the grid and so there is a complication with that given that it's very hard to attribute where the electricity has come from has it come from renewals fossil fuels, how do you account for that even with the power purchase agreement you can imagine that suddenly a hydrogen plant turns on and it doesn't know at a time when you need to firm up the supply using a gas plant kicking in or maybe even a coal plant ramping up, this sort of level of uncertainty about the carbon content of the electricity being either purchased or displaced so that's very complicated we have to work out a way of dealing with that and it's not obvious that we necessarily even have existing schemes that will deal with that large scale generation certificates and the like so should the exporters of hydrogen who stand alone and don't have to worry about these things be hamstrung by our slowness in getting a hydrogen certification scheme off the ground or should we just deal with these two opportunities for generating hydrogen for export separately and allow them to run as soon as we have a scheme in place I can have a go although I'm hoping others will jump in as well I mean I think there's two points I'd like to make one is that a big stand alone producer I'm thinking of the Asian Renewable Energy Hub for example that are exactly as you described planning to export directly they should be able to arrange their own sort of access to international markets because of their sheer size and the fact that they're clearly off grid clearly renewable without needing to wait for a certification scheme I'm not saying that a certification scheme wouldn't help them and make their life easier but I would think those guys are going to be sort of the least troubled by the lack of a certification scheme I think the ones who are on grid and buying their certificates but as you say people have doubts about whether it's really truly renewable energy those are the ones who are really going to need a certification scheme before international buyers I think will feel confident about how much is embedded but that's just my two cents first I guess I look at the sort of timeframes of these things and if as Rebecca says we're going to have a certification scheme in one or two years will there be any large scale export facilities facilities on the grid within that time probably not so I don't think they're going to be hamstrung by it but it will be important to see for them to be able to demonstrate that their their hydrogen has a particular carbon content I guess at the moment the international community is especially trying to establish the viability of a hydrogen supply chain this is where we're seeing for example the Japanese building hydrogen supply facilities in countries around the world that are looking at different mechanisms for transporting that hydrogen for A for producing the hydrogen and B for transporting it to Japan they're all small scale demonstration type of plants they're only there really to show that it's feasible and possible and potentially economically viable to do that once they've demonstrated that then it will be a question of scaling up and becoming a larger exporter it's instructive to see that the Japanese and the Koreans both have sort of relatively long timeframes for when they want to see zero carbon hydrogen coming in through there as an import I think they recognize that it will take time that doesn't mean to say that it might not be a commercial advantage for Australia to be able to say well we are zero carbon already so we should have a premium for Ahaj I might just jump in to sort of look at things through an ammonia lens noting that the question said hydrogen can but I assume you were also of course meant hydrogen fuels I think you look at the certification system that has been designed by the European certified and this is again where I think about geography as being such an important economic determinant the European countries are relatively close to each other the hydrogen that's being produced in Europe is able to be transported by gas pipelines the incentives to convert their hydrogen from Norway for instance into ammonia so it can be transported the sorts of distances we have to transport to reach our markets I'm not sure the incentives for certifying ammonia are as strong in Europe as they are for certifying hydrogen so I guess that leads me to wonder when it comes to certifying ammonia and large scale export of ammonia I doubt Europe will be exporting ammonia to the world there's one thing and whether or not their big purchase of ammonia for energy is yet to be seen so again the dynamics of hydrogen focused discussion and the level of urgency perhaps the certification of as John mentioned a supply chain for hydrogen internationally which is perhaps nascent but you know moving fast and it's great to see hydrogen supply chain projects like the one making progress on that front but the ammonia supply chain has been around for 100 years or longer and that is a supply chain that is already quite mature the issue is we're no longer putting ammonia into an explosive manufacturing plant or into fertilizers we're putting it into a new purpose so again how soon that large scale ammonia export industry might materialize for Australian producers like the Asian renewable energy hub and others I'm not sure they're on the same timeline as supply chains for hydrogen so again differential analysis of certification needs is really needed I think for ammonia okay everybody had a chance Rebecca would you like to say something yeah sure I'll just add to that sort of slightly and kind of agree with everything that Emma and John said as well but I think the approach should be we should try and certify all pathways I think that should be the aim and do them all fairly quickly I guess the the method to apportion or to work out the fossil fuel component renewable component of grid electricity it is a bit of a tricky one but we're not starting entirely from scratch and there are methods around that we can use as methods under Ingers I think the international standards I referred to take a slightly different approach but there's an approach there too so I think in the instance of trying to do something that's fairly quick fairly simple and aligned with what we've already got we should be looking at how we can draw on those methods and certainly you know aim to to keep all technology pathways kind of moving and developing a scheme for all of those yeah that's it great well thank you panel for that initial kickoff question so now we have questions from the audience and a number of these seem to be questions from different people asking why it's the same thing so I'll try and emphasise the questions rather than attributing it to one owner or another so for example there's been a bit of discussion on the chat and also in the Q&A about defining different labels different bands if you like bands on sugar content of food or something like this similar sort of thing as opposed to having a continuous accounting process for the carbon dioxide that's embedded in the production transport etc processes so this has come up in a couple of questions so I'd be interested in hearing the panel's view on the pros and cons of a banded system which might be associated with colours versus a continuously variable carbon accounting system perfect perfect I'm happy to do a go John okay sorry as long as the bands are clearly defined then it probably doesn't matter a huge amount I guess where it gets trickier is if people really want to see zero emissions hydrogen or the buyers really want zero emissions hydrogen then they can be less happy with something that has green hydrogen say defined as between so much and so much they want to know that zero emissions and they want to know the precise kilograms that are involved so I think it depends a little bit on who the customer is and what their priorities are in terms of emissions associated with the hydrogen thanks so much I think it all comes down to the negotiating forum in some ways I think obviously it's going to be a lot simpler and I understand it's not an uncomplicated matter to even calculate the amount of CO2 and I would say CO2 equivalent emissions per ton or kilogram not CO2 emissions because obviously there are other greenhouse gases involved but the amount of CO2 equivalent per ton emissions scientists within a year of arguing with each other should be able to come up with a standard measurement for that because I understand a ton of hydrogen is not a simple thing like there are different intensities or something I'm not a scientist but I've heard some arguments so maybe that can be agreed by I don't know how many 21 members in IPHE in a year one would hope maybe but if you want to get 21 members of IPHE to agree to what is green in a year or what is blue in a year I'm not sure that's going to be quite as fast in a negotiation to get agreement on that so I guess for me it comes down to what's the negotiating form for instance if the negotiating forum is Japan and Australia maybe Japan and Australia can agree what's green and what's blue or what's grey or other colours if they want to define them that may be helpful for some rhetorically to be able to say my hydrogen is green or my ammonia is green but again then it all depends on the boundary and then you'll get some critics coming and saying your ammonia isn't green the solar panels that were produced they used I don't know what electricity you get all those life cycle criticism starting to come in as well so what's really green John like is it we can say in the production boundary it is green and don't ask us about everything else because we didn't measure that so again something really simple everyone can understand CO2 equivalent emissions per tonne thank you very much our scientists agreed on what a tonne was and what the greenhouse gases were and let's get on with it I think you just have the simpler the better industries made this quite clear I think thank you Ben any other contributions can I just say I pretty much agree with everything that's been said here one thing that I mean this debate we've been having in the team I think one thing to remember is ultimately we're going to end up with it like it or not a regime complex of certification schemes there will not be just one certification scheme to rule them all so one way of thinking about this is what should be the role of a federal government federal Australian government supported certification scheme or where should they put their energy and I would argue that exactly along the lines that Penn has spoken about they should be just trying to get the information as complete and as clear as possible out there and then various private entities and bilateral and plurilateral things can then use that clear certified quality information to build whatever definition you know of green or whatever they want at a later stage and I think you know as John said there'll be different consumers of different markets with different ideas of what they want that to be so I really don't think the Australian government could ever get exactly the right definition of what's green or not green or even in a banded sense for all those different markets so I think you know let many flowers bloom according to the interests of the consumers on what is green or blue or purple or whatever and the government's role is to provide clear and correct information to the market so there you go Rebecca it's all easy you know do all that and at the same time remember that the third most common feature to include in a certification was simplicity yeah yeah I just yeah like I agree with whatever Emma and Pen have said I think yeah it would take a lot of time to get international agreement over bands or colours the approach in the strategy was just that we should in the first instance track production technology and emissions and that's enough information for people to make their decisions about what colour or what band it is and yeah it's just sort of and don't forget we need to do this anyway so you can apply a band it's the first step anyway so I think you know that's where our focus is for the time being it's where IPHE focuses at the moment is just getting those building blocks for it right yeah yeah so I think it's important to remember it's not like a food label where anything below a certain level is regarded as safe every CO2 molecule emitted in a so-called green label still contributes to global warming so that I think speaks of volumes for a continuous carbon accounting system great so speaking of such things there's been a number of questions up on the chat and on the Q&A about scope free emissions and seems like this is a pretty active debate particularly so scope free emissions for those of you that aren't familiar with are basically those emissions emitted outside the corporate entity that is doing the contribution to the supply chain process so for example fugitive emissions that occur in the production of methane if you're a company that's making hydrogen out of methane how are they going to be included in the process should they be included in the process so the question that we've had from a number of our audiences how do you cope with scope free emissions and particularly fugitive emissions all right I'll have a go this is a bit of a tricky one but I guess whether it's scope one two or three depends on whose perspective you're looking at that from so if you're just the hydrogen production facility those upstream fugitive emissions are scope three and you wouldn't be required to report that under Angus but I guess if you look at the boundary well to gate that we've been talking about you could think of it as kind of counting that like scope one and scope two emissions at each point along that so you'd count the scope one and two associated with the fossil fuel extraction scope one and two associated with the transport scope one and two associated with the hydrogen production so it's a little bit complicated but I think that that's how I've been looking at these sort of worlds gate boundaries anyway about happy for other perspectives on this I think Rebecca that's a very good point to make but I would contend it depends on whose gate it is right so let's not talk about a gate let's talk about I don't know well to methane pipeline end or something like this but the gate is really dependent on who the entity is that's contributing at the last point in the chain so it's a little bit of a difficult terminology in that regard but I agree with your point I guess I'd like to add to that it's really difficult to calculate and it is our intention to keep this simple and aligned with existing frameworks but that well to gate yeah that's a sort of slightly broader boundary than Engers but if we're going to be internationally consistent we might have to look at how how we do that I guess yeah again that simplicity is the important thing I agree with you Rebecca once you move start to try work out what scope 3 emissions are then you very quickly become a very challenging can of worms to do and just to clarify I think I personally think that's a great idea right so scope 1 and 2 isn't sufficient if you're just talking about an entity potentially buying gas from someone else but if you're saying but we're sort of going to fudge it a bit and make the scope 1 and 2 go back down the supply chain all the way to the well then I think that's actually a really intelligent approach to not dealing with the complexity of all scope 3 emissions but getting those big order of magnitude 25% once into the scheme in an efficient way yeah so I think a scope to narrow it if you like within that broader boundary that doesn't quite make sense but yeah it's not that we'd have to count you've got to well to gate boundary but you don't have to count all scope 3 emissions within that but I think this is some of the detail that we need to sort of look at through the that we're looking at currently and from now on very good thank you so let's just look at a couple more questions here so there's been a bit of discussion about how blockchain lends itself to this type of process and depending on what your background is we might need a bit of explanation for the audience as to how that might work what do people think about the application of blockchain to this type of certification process you'd like to have a go I'm not an expert on blockchain but I can say that it was discussed I think on the 28th of August at the Emonia Energy Association National Conference and there were people who understood it who had a great conversation and I heard it but basically it's one of the candidates is what from what I understand from the experts and there are all sorts of issues about the veracity of the data that would be included blockchain one potential technology that could be used it has its downsides as to other types of technology that could be used so it's all about the the reliability of the data is absolutely paramount there's no use having a system of certification which gets called in question in terms of whether the data is correct or not so I think that's just what I wanted to say I think there needs to be conversations amongst data management experts and verification and certification experts to look at these sorts of options and come up with the best system that suits us including us as Australians with the particular characteristics of our products and our markets and our capabilities obviously when you design these things you need to bear in mind if you're doing a global system how will this work for the South African producers who want to or don't want to join this certification system the Chilean producers we're talking about Morocco is laying down this is going to be international so again designing something that's awesome for Australia but then can't be replicated in other countries easily may present opportunities for us for capacity building or may just mean they go with their own system so I'll just stop with that it's an important question anybody else like to weigh in on blockchain people are doing that on the chat I see well not a blockchain expert but from what I understand about it one of its strengths might be that it's a reasonably safe way of passing on a certificate avoiding sort of duplication and double counting things like that that's that's about all I know but yeah blockchain experts of the world can work it out good so let's move on to another question so there's been a discussion around the use of certificates like renewable energy certificates being used to trade between you know customers and suppliers etc etc you can potentially issue a certificate based on a certain level of CO2 content allow a threshold perhaps and have these traded so what do the panel think about such a certificate trading scheme as an option is someone suggesting a carbon market sorry I had to do it academic economist by default yes but the renewable energy certificates that are around here in Australia have a similar basis yeah I think in the first instance we're just looking at sort of buying and tracking the emissions associated with production a guarantee of origin scheme so to say there's no hydrogen targets or anything like that to set up that sort of regime yeah any other views of course it might be said that if we had a universal global carbon trading system that we wouldn't be having this discussion tonight because it'll be done by that but we don't so hence we need certification to be able to determine the carbon content of various products and to influence the saleability and the demand for such products any other commentary on the certificate side here just quickly while you know it's great to be as inclusive in what's being priced into the you know emissions as possible of course on the other hand if we start having lots of somewhat complicated and Australian specific you know Australian regulatory regime specific components in our regime it will undermine trust and confidence in our scheme with overseas markets potentially and that confidence having confidence in the scheme both among you know the sellers and buyers is crucial particularly among buyers you know they they've got to be confident that they're getting what they're paying for and the buyers the sellers rather they have an incentive because they are hoping probably that they'll get price premium for for hydrogen with with low low or zero emissions associated with it so having confidence that you've got a scheme that is trust worthy is good perhaps I'll just say and John you referred to buyers and sellers and and this comes down to again geography perhaps that a system that can be negotiated globally around these issues involves a lot of different buyers and a lot of different sellers with a lot of different preferences as reflected by them that perhaps the negotiating positions of their respective governments and again the way I see it it's not an either or I think definitely a multilateral agreement around certification is ideal as per the hydrogen we should be actively engaging in that as we are but at the same time as we all know things happen multilateral level regional level and a bilateral level often simultaneously with different parties and different conversations and priorities so again when we talk about buyers and sellers I guess the sellers we're most concerned about of course are the ones in Australia and the buyers again that we're most concerned about are the ones we're likely to actually sell to so just be interesting too and I know that Rebecca and her team are you know looking at those international relationships that are probably going to be the highest priority indeed so it's a complex picture but I just want to make that point at the end of the day we want a scheme that's good for Australia if an internationally accepted scheme is bad for us then we're better off having something that's good for a better scheme that's acceptable to our customers and good for Australia can I provide the same thing opinion it just depends on what you define it's good for Australia as an academic as opposed to a member government I think good for the world and avoiding catastrophic climate change is actually the number one priority for the certification scheme I don't think as I made the point earlier I said I don't think people or countries are going to be interested in importing hydrogen with lots of emissions associated with them in the medium term you know they're not we're not going to be having to sell lots of dirty hydrogen put it that way so that's actually segue's nicely John into a question that's been asked here which talks about the EU moving towards border adjustments for carbon content particularly in embedded energy products the US has also had some thoughts down the same lines so wouldn't certification schemes like this greatly facilitate the implementation of such border adjustments and give you exactly the information that's needed to enable countries like this just to simply lay another policy completely over the top of the certification scheme and thereby make use of the work already done in the accounting processes for embedded carbon so that's the question to the panel can I use some of the information that I have from our one of our wonderful secondaries Alison Reeve who's just started with us interestingly the European certified scheme boundary doesn't exactly line up with the way it looks like their border tariff adjustment is going to work so the certified scheme boundary with the fugitive emissions for example lines up with their fuel directives whereas the border tariff adjustment looks like it's going to line up with their emissions traded scheme and transport is not part of the ETS so it's strictly one scope one and two so actually there is a conflict even in the European approach on that so it's not clear how that's going to land for Australia except noting that transport well it depends because hydrogen and ammonia can be used both in industry and transport and there's a danger that they'll be treated differently depending on what the end user is other comments on border adjustments no we still have a number of questions but I make note that we're now well over our allotted time if people have specific questions of information that they'd like to know about then please add that to the Q&A panel we will endeavour to answer those questions where you're after a specific piece of information and I see that there have been a number of those they're not more general questions that would be good for discussion but if you're after information we'll certainly do our best to provide that so you're welcome to look at that we will be capturing what's on the Q&A panel but also on the chat and we're appropriate we will be able to respond to those queries so I think that might be a good time to wrap things up we've had a really well engaged audience we still have more than half of the audience with us so that's always a good sign the questions have been extremely appropriate and insightful and I think there's a lot of interest out there in this topic we at the ANU and the energy changing student in the grand challenge zero carbon energy for the Asia Pacific we'll be researching these questions in great detail over the coming months and we have to contribute to the information that underpins the understanding of certification schemes and make this obviously available to the National Hydrogen Task Force where Rebecca is located so we will continue to undertake that role and if people have ideas that they'd like to contribute we'd be most welcoming of receiving those ideas so let me now just finish up by once again thanking our panellists Rebecca Thompson Emma Aisbert, Penn Houth and John Soderbaum I think it's been a terrific discussion and we'd like to also thank the audience and just a quick advertisement in a couple of weeks time another public forum this time it'll be about Australia as the renewable energy superpower so keep your eye open for that and that'll be happening on the 24th of September I believe so go to our website and register for that and we look forward to seeing you all then and thank you again everybody and good evening and have a safe rest of the week