Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

In Wyoming, a Tribe and a City Pursue Clean Energy Funds Spurned by the Governor

News Feed
Monday, April 22, 2024

The Northern Arapaho Tribe and City of Cheyenne are seeking money for solar panels, emissions cuts and expenses reductions. Grant managers say any amount would create jobs and diversify the energy portfolio.By Jake BolsterWhen Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon told the Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 that the state would not be applying for federal grant money to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, he left most communities in the state without access to potentially transformative funds to upgrade infrastructure, reduce pollution and bring down costs for local governments.

When Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon told the Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 that the state would not be applying for federal grant money to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, he left most communities in the state without access to potentially transformative funds to upgrade infrastructure, reduce pollution and bring down costs for local governments. But […]

The Northern Arapaho Tribe and City of Cheyenne are seeking money for solar panels, emissions cuts and expenses reductions. Grant managers say any amount would create jobs and diversify the energy portfolio.

By Jake Bolster

When Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon told the Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 that the state would not be applying for federal grant money to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, he left most communities in the state without access to potentially transformative funds to upgrade infrastructure, reduce pollution and bring down costs for local governments.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Is Clean Energy Killing Our Wildlife? 4,642 Vertebrate Species Threatened

New research shows that 4,642 vertebrate species globally are at risk due to mineral extraction activities such as mining and drilling. This impact is most...

Research indicates that over four thousand vertebrate species face threats from mineral extraction, affecting global biodiversity hotspots. Key risks arise from mining essential clean energy materials like lithium. Reducing mining pollution is highlighted as a critical, achievable goal to lessen biodiversity impacts.New research shows that 4,642 vertebrate species globally are at risk due to mineral extraction activities such as mining and drilling.This impact is most profound in biodiversity hotspots where materials like lithium and cobalt, essential for clean energy technologies, are mined. The research suggests that mitigating mining pollution could substantially reduce biodiversity loss, providing a practical way forward without compromising the need for essential materials.Global Impact of Mining on BiodiversityA comprehensive study has found that 4,642 species of vertebrate are threatened by mineral extraction around the world through mining and quarrying, and drilling for oil and gas. Mining activity coincides with the world’s most valuable biodiversity hotspots, which contain a hyper-diversity of species and unique habitats found nowhere else on Earth.The biggest risk to species comes from mining for materials fundamental to our transition to clean energy, such as lithium and cobalt – both essential components of solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars.Southern Ghana is a global hotspot of extraction-induced threats to biodiversity. Artisanal small-scale alluvial gold mining like this threatens important bird areas through environmental mercury pollution. Credit: David EdwardsThe Construction Industry’s Role in Habitat DestructionQuarrying for limestone, which is required in huge amounts for cement as a construction material, is also putting many species at risk.The threat to nature is not limited to the physical locations of the mines – species living at great distances away can also be impacted, for example by polluted watercourses, or deforestation for new access roads and infrastructure.Strategies to Mitigate Environmental DamageThe researchers say governments and the mining industry should focus on reducing the pollution driven by mining as an ‘easy win’ to reduce the biodiversity loss associated with mineral extraction.This is the most complete global assessment of the threat to biodiversity from mineral extraction ever undertaken. The results are published today in the journal Current Biology.Mineral extraction threatens vertebrate species populations across the tropics. Even legal mines, like this one within the Jamari National Forest, can threaten hyper-biodiverse forests. Credit: David EdwardsBalancing Mining With Biodiversity Conservation“We simply won’t be able to deliver the clean energy we need to reduce our climate impact without mining for the materials we need, and that creates a problem because we’re mining in locations that often have very high levels of biodiversity,” said Professor David Edwards in the University of Cambridge’s Department of Plant Sciences and Conservation Research Institute, senior author of the report.He added: “So many species, particularly fish, are being put at risk through the pollution caused by mining. It would be an easy win to work on reducing this freshwater pollution so we can still get the products we need for the clean energy transition, but in a way that isn’t causing so much biodiversity loss.”Across all vertebrate species, fish are at particularly high risk from mining (2,053 species), followed by reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. The level of threat seems to be linked to where a particular species lives and its lifestyle: species using freshwater habitats, and species with small ranges are particularly at risk.The Local Impact of Quarrying on Species“The need for limestone as a core component of construction activity also poses a real risk to wildlife. Lots of species are very restricted in where they live because they’re specialized to live on limestone. A cement mine can literally take out an entire hillside – and with it these species’ homes,” said Ieuan Lamb in the University of Sheffield’s School of Biosciences, first author of the report.The Bent-Toed Gecko, for example, is threatened by limestone quarrying in Malaysia – it only exists on a single mountain range that planned mining activity will completely destroy.To get their results, the researchers used International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) data to see which vertebrate species are threatened by mining. By mapping the locations of these species they could investigate the types of mining that are putting species at risk, and see where the risks are particularly high.The researchers discovered that species categorized as ‘vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered’ are more threatened by mineral extraction than species of lesser concern.Watercourses can be affected in many ways, and water pollution can affect hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of rivers and flood plains. Mining sand as a construction material, for example, alters patterns of water flow in rivers and wetlands, making birds like the Indian Skimmer more accessible to predators.Mineral extraction threatens vertebrate species populations across the tropics, with hotspots in the Andes, coastal West and Central Africa, and South-East Asia – which coincide with high mine density. For example, artisanal small-scale alluvial gold mining in Ghana threatens important bird areas through environmental mercury pollution.Global demand for metal minerals, fossil fuels, and construction materials is growing dramatically, and the extraction industry is expanding rapidly to meet this demand. In 2022 the revenue of the industry as a whole was estimated at US $943 billion.Biodiversity underpins the protection of the world’s carbon stocks, which help to mitigate climate change.The study focused only on vertebrate species, but the researchers say mining is also likely to be a substantial risk to plants and invertebrates.“There’s no question that we are going to continue to mine – our entire societies are based on mined products. But there are environmental tensions embodied in our use of these products. Our report is a vital first step in avoiding biodiversity loss amidst the predicted drastic expansion of the mining industry,” said Edwards.“Wildlife is more sensitive to mining in some regions of the world than in others, and our report can inform choices of where to prioritize getting our minerals to cause the least damage to biodiversity. Future policy should also focus on creating more circular economies – increasing recycling and reuse of materials, rather than just extracting more,” said Lamb.Reference: “Global threats of extractive industries on vertebrate biodiversity” 25 July 2024, Current Biology. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.06.077

Ed Miliband: people must be persuaded of need for pylons near homes

Communities affected by construction of renewable energy infrastructure ‘have the right to see the benefits’UK politics live – latest updatesLabour will seek to persuade people living near proposed pylon routes and other renewable energy infrastructure that the developments are critical to bring down bills and tackle carbon emissions, the energy secretary said.Ed Miliband promised to consider new benefits for communities affected by the construction of renewable energy infrastructure, and community ownership of the assets, which could include onshore windfarms and solar farms. Continue reading...

Labour will seek to persuade people living near proposed pylon routes and other renewable energy infrastructure that the developments are critical to bring down bills and tackle carbon emissions, the energy secretary said.Ed Miliband promised to consider new benefits for communities affected by the construction of renewable energy infrastructure, and community ownership of the assets, which could include onshore windfarms and solar farms.“Communities have the right to see the benefits,” he said, though he stopped short of specifying what measures Labour could take. Allowing local people a share in the projects could be one way, he added. “This is not just about community benefits but community shares, community ownership.”He said the government would seek to minimise the impacts of new infrastructure on nature and the landscape. “We can integrate concerns about nature right at the beginning of the planning process,” he said. “There is a way of doing this that is positive for nature.”Labour launched Great British Energy earlier this week, a nationally owned organisation that will invest billions in energy projects around the UK, including offshore wind. The prime minister, Keir Starmer, is aiming for 20m homes to be powered by offshore wind by the end of the decade, but that will require large amounts of new infrastructure, in the form not just of windfarms but grid connections and pylons to transport the power to where it is consumed.Local groups have raised concerns about pylons and other infrastructure, and in some areas called for a pause while plans are scrutinised. Miliband indicated he was aware of the concerns but said that in his view the infrastructure was sorely needed to revive the UK economy and move to a clean energy future.“I’m in the persuasion business, not the telling business,” he told a conference on Friday morning of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum, a group for Labour MPs with green leanings that intends to push the government towards more environmental policies. “Persuasion is very important.”But he was uncompromising on the need for such new development. “If we do not have this infrastructure, we will have to carry on with fossil fuels, which is bad for nature and the climate crisis,” he said. “That is fundamentally the choice.”Solving the cost of living crisis, with high energy prices a leading cause, would also be impossible without building new renewable energy generation, which would result in cheaper energy, he added. “My constituency, Doncaster, is seeing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation – are we saying to them we can’t build this infrastructure [that will reduce bills] and we can’t do anything about it?”Miliband said his mission was to engineer a “just transition” for people in fossil fuel-dependent jobs, such as in the oil and gas industry. Many are concerned at losing well-paid jobs in these established sectors.The energy secretary contrasted Labour with the previous Conservative government, which he said had shown little interest in equipping people with the skills and training needed for jobs in sectors such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The truth is that the North Sea was declining under them, as it is declining under us,” he said. “But if you do not show any interest, you can’t expect the private sector to show any interest either.”He said his department was becoming more of an “industrial policy department” than solely an energy department.Green jobs could rejuvenate the UK economy, he added. “All the data I have suggests that the possibilities are enormous.”

Despite breakthrough, Manchin and Barrasso's permitting reform effort faces hurdles

Although Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) finally reached an agreement on energy permitting reform this week, their effort still faces an uphill climb.  They’ll need to convince leadership and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to support their deal — and to give them floor space at the end...

Although Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) finally reached an agreement on energy permitting reform this week, their effort still faces an uphill climb.  They’ll need to convince leadership and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to support their deal — and to give them floor space at the end of the year. For Manchin, who is not seeking reelection and will leave the Senate when his term ends in January, it marks the last chance to accomplish a long-time priority and one that is expected to be a legacy issue for him. So far, several key lawmakers have said they are open to the effort, which seeks to bolster the buildout of both renewable and fossil fuel energy sources — but they have stopped short of endorsing it. “I’d like to get permitting reform done,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters when asked about the bill this week.  Schumer said he had not yet seen the text of the agreement, and didn’t say whether he supported it. House Natural Resources Committee Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), who has been negotiating with Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) to reach a House-side deal, said the Manchin-Barrasso language will “mesh really well” with their own efforts.  It’s not clear what any effort to mesh the two could look like, however, as Peters and Westerman have not yet detailed any sort of agreement.  The Barrasso-Manchin bill, unveiled Monday after a two-year effort to get permitting reform across the finish line, comes shortly before lawmakers prepare to depart Washington for the August recess. The Senate is also slated to be out in October and early November, as many lawmakers focus on their reelection campaigns and the presidential race — leaving limited time on the legislative calendar. The legislation includes provisions that are aimed at strengthening and improving interregional connectivity for the nation’s electric grid, bolstering the buildout of renewable and fossil energy and shortening the window to sue to block energy projects.  “This legislation has something in it for everybody because it’ll make it easier to have affordable, reliable energy. It’ll also reduce emissions a lot,“ said Xan Fishman, senior director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center.  Fishman said the emissions reductions are expected to come from the provisions that bolster the grid, as well as those that seek to make it easier to build renewable energy projects.  The bill faces opposition from progressives and environmental advocates who object to its pro-fossil fuel measures and those that could make it harder for community or environmental opponents of an energy project to block it.  “For Joe Manchin, I’m sure he wants to go out swinging for the fossil fuel industry and we’re going to be swinging back in a big way,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). “We need to find a way to kill the zombie one more time.” Schumer said in 2022 that he would back Manchin’s efforts to speed up the process for approving energy projects in exchange for Manchin’s vote on the Democrats’ climate, tax and health care bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, stung by Manchin’s support of the IRA and saying his efforts did not go far enough, many Republicans ultimately opposed the West Virginia senator’s 2022 permitting proposal. And earlier this year, Schumer himself threw cold water on permitting reform’s prospects, saying it would be “virtually impossible” to get done in the near term.  “I think it’s going to be very hard to get anything done legislatively on transmission at this point given the composition of the House with a Republican majority and so few Republicans eager to do any kind of regional transmission,” he told reporters.  But Barrasso spokesperson Brian Faughnan told The Hill in an email Thursday that the senator and his staff “have been communicating with relevant members and offices in the House and Senate.”  He added that Barrasso “will look for opportunities to advance the bill during the lame duck session of Congress.” Manchin and Barrasso, the chair and ranking member of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, are pressing forward with their legislation using the little time they have before the recess.  Their committee is slated to mark up the bill next week. And it’s receiving praise from key lawmakers including Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.), who called it a “pretty good effort.” Yet some potential supporters, including Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who supports permitting reform broadly but said Tuesday he had not yet read the latest agreement, expressed doubt about whether the bill could actually get done.  “I’m not optimistic about this year,” he said, saying the election could “get in the way.” Zack Budryk contributed. 

Wind turbines rarely fail. So why did Vineyard Wind’s fall apart?

GE Vernova's initial analysis found that a manufacturing defect led to the failure of a turbine blade off the coast of Nantucket, a mishap that has energized opponents of renewable energy.

A preliminary analysis of the Vineyard Wind turbine that failed has found that, although the fundamental design of the machine’s 351-foot blades is sound, a manufacturing flaw caused one of them to snap as it spun over the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month. The July 13 accident, which prompted federal authorities to shut down the entire wind farm, littered the beaches of Nantucket, Massachusetts, with foam and fiberglass. GE Vernova, which manufactures the Haliade-X turbines, said Wednesday that its tests revealed that insufficient bonding was applied to the blade at its factory in Gaspe, Canada, Reuters reported. The company said its quality assurance program should have caught the problem, and it will inspect each of the 150 blades the facility has produced. “We have work to do, but we are confident in our ability to implement corrective actions and move forward,” a company representative told Reuters. GE stressed that its investigation has so far found no reason to doubt the integrity of the design, noting that, “there is no indication of an engineering design flaw in the blade.” The blade failed July 13 while undergoing post-installation testing and commissioning, sending debris flying into the Atlantic. Some 300 feet of what remained hung by a few strands of fiberglass alongside the tower, which stands roughly 450 feet above the water, though when the blade points straight up, the overall height reaches around 853 feet. Most of that fell into the sea five days later; waiting vessels recovered what they could despite weather conditions that created what Vineyard Wind called “a difficult working environment.” By that point, however, foam and fiberglass had long since reached the shores of Nantucket, roughly 15 miles miles away, angering locals and providing ammunition to opponents of wind power. Residents expressed concern about PFAS contamination, plastic pollution, and the impact of the mishap on the local environment and economy. Although Vineyard Wind insisted the material is nontoxic and there have so far been no reports of the accident killing, injuring, or otherwise harming marine life, fiberglass can cause skin irritation. Although the manufacturing oversight that led to the failure is unfortunate, it is among the most likely points of failure in the lifecycle of an offshore turbine, Grant Goodrich, the executive director of the Great Lakes Energy Institute, told Grist. Problems arising from installation are vanishingly rare, he said, and because the blade that failed was new, that meant that a manufacturing defect or damage incurred during transportation of the blade were the biggest areas of concern. Still, failures of any kind are rare, though not unheard of. A turbine blade at the Dogger Bank A offshore wind farm in the United Kingdom failed earlier this year. It was the same model used by Vineyard Wind, but GE Vernova told Reuters that the two incidents are not related and its investigation into what happened 15 miles off the coast of Nantucket continues. “Our investigation is ongoing, and we are working with urgency to scrutinize our blade manufacturing and quality assurance program across offshore wind,” the company said in a statement, according to the Boston Herald. “We have work to do, but we are confident in our ability to implement corrective actions and move forward.” Ultimately, though, addressing the problem and cleaning up the mess the accident created may be faster and easier than addressing the damage it may have done to public perception of wind. Critics of renewable energy seized the opportunity to denounce wind farms and link the turbine failure to congressional Democrats pushing a permitting reform bill that promotes renewables. Yet advocates of wind and other forms of clean energy quickly noted that they are far safer than fossil fuel production and do not cause leaks, spills, or explosions. The industry’s safety record is widely known in Europe and China, where the industry is relatively mature and the bulk of the world’s offshore farms are located. Goodrich noted that projects around the world ordered 20,000 utility-scale turbines last year, yet there were only a handful of accidents or failures.  Vineyard Wind is among the nation’s first major offshore wind farms. The sprawling complex of 62 turbines, which one day will produce 862 megawatts, was in the earliest stages of operation. Just 10 were spinning when the blade broke and the Federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement shut them down. There is still no word on when energy generation will resume, though clean energy advocates vowed to ensure that it will — in Nantucket and beyond. “Now we must all work to ensure that the failure of a single turbine blade does not adversely impact the emergence of offshore wind as a critical solution for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and addressing the climate crisis,” the Sierra Club said in a statement. “Wind power is one of the safest forms of energy generation.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wind turbines rarely fail. So why did Vineyard Wind’s fall apart? on Jul 25, 2024.

California will host a billion-dollar 'hydrogen hub.' What it means for our energy future

In the race to decarbonize energy and fuel, the federal government is spending billions to create hydrogen economies. California will be one of several hydrogen hubs — here's what that will mean.

To its most ardent supporters, the emergence of a “hydrogen economy” is nothing but wonderful: good for the climate, good for the environment, good for human health, good for the economy, good for jobs, good for the historically overlooked and disadvantaged members of society.Is it?California is about to find out. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. The federal government plans to spend $7 billion to $8 billion to build a hydrogen economy in the U.S. The money will be allocated to seven regional “hydrogen hubs” across the U.S. mainland. Six cover multiple states. California gets a hub of its own — and $1.2 billion. Private investment would add an additional $11 billion or so. The money will soon start flowing: A deal was signed with the U.S. Department of Energy in mid-July. The deal creates a new “public-private partnership” to run the hub, called ARCHES — the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems. The operation will disburse money for projects around the state. Hydrogen producers, oil companies, gas companies, green energy companies, environmental policy groups, long-haul trucking companies and fuel cell makers are among the applicants. Southern California Gas Co. already has announced plans to build a dedicated clean hydrogen pipeline in the L.A. region called Angeles Link.The program will kick off with 37 projects — yet to be announced — spread across the state with a heavy concentration in the Central Valley. More than 10 sites will produce enough clean renewable hydrogen to fuel the projects below and kickstart the buildout of the greater hydrogen ecosystem. (Source: ARCHES) These projects will replace diesel-powered cargo-handling equipment with hydrogen fuel cell equivalents and associated fueling infrastructure, reducing emissions and community health impacts while reimagining large-scale transportation operations. ARCHES plans to build more than 60 hydrogen fueling stations to enable more than 5,000 fuel cell electric trucks and more than 1,000 fuel cell electric buses — directly replacing diesel fuel with a zero-emissions option. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Northern California Power Agency will transition key power plants to 100% renewable hydrogen. Distributed fuel cells will be used to support grid operations throughout the state, including on the reservation of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. A first-of-its-kind, hydrogen-powered, 140-foot, 50-person marine research vessel will use liquid hydrogen to replace tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel a year. The vessel will significantly reduce CO2 emissions and demonstrate a sustainable path forward for smaller boats. What is a hydrogen hub? That’s a lot of money, bureaucracy and infrastructure — so what exactly does California get when it gets a hydrogen hub?Consider an analogy — the gasoline supply chain. Oil is refined into gasoline, the gasoline is shipped by truck or pipeline, and end users burn it to produce energy. A hydrogen hub would act much the same, but with far lower levels of climate-disrupting greenhouse gases — ideally. Hydrogen not expected to replace all fossil fuels, not even close — the state wants electricity to pick up most of that load. But electricity won’t work in some industrial sectors, and hydrogen could fill some of those gaps.The idea is to seed the market with government money, set regulations that require reduction in greenhouse gases and create demand (currently close to nonexistent) and hope that a new technology or industry can scale up enough to dramatically reduce costs and prices.Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and a powerful energy source. (The sun is mostly hydrogen.) When burned, unlike carbon-based molecules, hydrogen gives off no greenhouse gases.It’s the leading candidate to address hard-to-decarbonize energy sectors that are difficult or impossible to run on electricity. Topping the list: long-haul trucking, steel making, glass making, cement making, heavy cargo handling equipment, large aircraft and ocean-going vessels. With some equipment modification, it could even be swapped for natural gas at electricity-generation plants.The big problem: Making clean or green hydrogen costs a lot of money, far more than the market can currently bear. “It is expensive to produce, expensive to transport, expensive to store, expensive to distribute and expensive to use,” said Michael Liebreich, a managing partner at clean energy investment firm EcoPragma Capital and a fixture at clean energy conferences around the world.The hydrogen hubs’ main aim? A dramatic reduction in hydrogen’s cost and the creation of new markets for the stuff. Federal and state money will be used as leverage to attract private industry and finance the creation of a new infrastructure, scaling it up to get costs down while subsidizing the price for end users until it becomes affordable without taxpayer help.Hydrogen markets aren’t new. A big international market for affordable hydrogen, in place for decades, trades about 95 million tons a year. Hydrogen feedstock is used to create ammonia for fertilizer and other products, and to help refine oil into gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels. But making those millions of tons is a dirty, fossil-fuel-heavy game.“Making” is a loose term. Hydrogen, of course, already exists. But it’s largely inaccessible on its own. Except for some scarce underground deposits, pure hydrogen must be coaxed out of other molecules.The hydrogen atom — one proton, one electron — loves to hook up with other elements. Hydrogen is an ingredient in molecular matter that ranges from methane to vegetable fats to salt water, drinking water, waste water. H2O, right?It’s also an essential component of hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas. Without the carbon, though, it’s as clean as an energy source can get.Pulling it apart from its partners and isolating it for industrial use only recently has begun to move from dirty to clean. Currently, nearly all hydrogen production requires high heat and methane, the prime constituent of natural gas. Liquid water is heated to steam and mixed with methane to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. That process typically costs between $1 and $2 per kilogram.California is the second-largest user of this so-called gray hydrogen in the U.S., said ARCHES Chief Executive Angelina Galiteva. The budding clean hydrogen industry has come up with a color scheme to identify the dirty process known as methane steam reformation and make it easier for the general public to understand cleaner alternatives.The dirty way is called gray hydrogen. The cost ranges from 98 cents to $2.93 per kilogram, according to new-energy market researcher BloombergNEF.But cleaner production methods are identified with other colors: blue, green, even pink. Eventually, they’ll have to compete with gray hydrogen on costs, or government subsidies will need to continue forever.Blue hydrogen uses the gray methane method, but rather than letting CO2 escape, the greenhouse gas is captured and stored. BloombergNEF estimates current costs between $1.80 and $4.70 per kilogram.Green hydrogen employs a completely different production method, called electrolysis. The only ingredient is water. A massive machine pushes heavy currents of electricity through the water to split the molecules into their constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen. If solar or wind (or nuclear) energy is used to power the electrolyzer, no carbon dioxide is emitted. The current cost of electrolytic green hydrogen, however, is steep: $4.50 to $12 per kilogram. (ARCHES will also fund projects that convert plant waste from forest floors and agricultural lands into hydrogen.)The hydrogen hubs will be funded to create the infrastructure for all three: blue, green and pink, with some regions specializing in a color or two. For California, the color is green.Environmental and other concerns Cost is hardly the only challenge facing the hydrogen hubs. Hundreds of miles of pipelines must be constructed, new trucks powered by hydrogen assembled, hydrogen fueling stations placed along highways, and hydrogen storage units built.Several environmental groups have come out against them, especially the hubs focused on blue hydrogen, which their foes consider a sop to the fossil-fuel industry with high potential for carbon dioxide leaks.Even green hydrogen has drawn opposition from some who say it makes little sense to redirect an electric utility’s solar and wind power away from existing customers to make hydrogen, leaving those customers with dirtier alternatives. Those critics want the hydrogen industry to build its own clean electricity generators. The U.S. Department of Treasury is reviewing the rules around hydrogen tax credits that could have a huge impact on the budding industry. Will credits apply to green hydrogen producers that tap into existing solar projects (thus competing with residential and other industrial users), or must they use new, dedicated solar plants? Will producers of green hydrogen get full credit only when renewable energy is online, or will they be allowed to mix in some dirtier stuff when renewables aren’t readily accessible?Environmental groups and industry players eagerly await the decision. The tax credits could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars across the seven hydrogen hubs, according to climate economist Danny Cullenward.The Environmental Defense Fund believes clean hydrogen is important for hard-to-decarbonize industries. It generally supports green hydrogen, but with caveats.The tiny size of hydrogen atoms and molecules (hydrogen atoms tend to link themselves into couples to create the molecule H2) makes them especially prone to leaks from pipelines and other containers, said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the EDF’s representative in Sacramento. “Hydrogen is very small and slippery, and it leaks really easily and can leak anywhere,” she said. While hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, she points out, it can still play an indirect role in damaging the atmosphere because it can react with other compounds.Water is also an issue in drought-prone California. “There are certainly questions about where the water is going to come from,” she said.Green hydrogen “certainly has potential” she said. “All of these details matter.”Galiteva, the CEO of ARCHES, said leakage issues will be addressed, and the water problems too — with details to come later. But she’s “very perplexed” about environmentalists’ opposition. “We’re going to be decarbonizing the most polluting of all sectors — transportation, heavy industry, airplanes, shipping,” she said. “It’s like being against motherhood and apple pie to be against green hydrogen.”ARCHES is not a government body; it’s a nonprofit company, registered as a private limited liability corporation, or LLC. It’s owned by four partners: The University of California Board of Regents; the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California; and the Renewables 100 Policy Institute.Galiteva, Renewables 100’s co-founder, said ARCHES estimates the California hub will create 220,400 jobs, with high priority given to union labor. Health-wise, ARCHES claims that by 2031, $2.95 billion will be saved in health-related costs each year, as diesel fuel use declines. And $380 million will be invested in disadvantaged communities, including workforce development. But first, hubs must reduce sky-high costs for clean hydrogen while boosting what’s now virtually nonexistent demand. That kind of cost reduction is aggressive, even audacious, for a government project. “The timeline is ambitious,” Galiteva said. “Our goal is to get it to $2 per kilogram” at wholesale prices. “If we can get it to $5 we can make it cost competitive with diesel fuel at the pump.”California’s few hydrogen stations now charge up to $36 per kilogram. Precise comparisons with diesel or gasoline are difficult and depend on use. But fuel for a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco in a Toyota Mirai or Hyundai Nexo fuel cell car would cost about twice as much as the same trip in a gasoline car. (The two Japanese automakers partially subsidize fuel costs when they lease the cars to Californians.)The U.S. is hardly the only country attempting to build a hydrogen economy. China, Japan, South Korea, several countries in Europe, and Saudi Arabia are all sinking hundreds of billions into their efforts. More than 40 countries have developed national hydrogen strategies, according to the International Energy Agency. All face similar cost challenges.Clean hydrogen will require massive spending on clean electrical power. Renewable power plants need to be built, transmission lines strung, electric substations upgraded or newly constructed, just to accommodate hydrogen production. That’s on top of the electric grid infrastructure already under strain and with new demands from electric vehicles and artificial intelligence server farms. The L.A. Department of Water and Power plans to convert the Scattergood Generating Station near Dockweiler Beach from burning natural gas to burning green hydrogen. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times) The road ahead for California To provide the amount of clean hydrogen needed to meet California’s 2045 climate goals, the state’s production must grow dramatically, according to ARCHES — from 6.8 million tons annually in 2023 to 71 million tons in 2045.Rapid price reduction has worked in renewable energy. Can it work for clean hydrogen? “We did it with wind and solar, and we need to do it with hydrogen as well,” said state Sen. Anna Caballero, whose district covers a wide swath of rural territory west of Merced and Fresno.Galiteva and other hydrogen proponents point out that early solar power skeptics were proved wrong and that costs have plummeted consistently over time. That’s due mainly to increasing manufacturing experience, better understanding of materials, and scale. But that took decades. The hydrogen hubs aim to reduce costs dramatically in less than 10 years.Green hydrogen production, for example, requires expensive industrial-size electrolyzers to split water. The basic technology is almost as old as the electric battery. Whether the equipment can be built affordably at scale is yet to be proved.“We’re in the early days of green hydrogen electrolysis,” said Marty Neese, chief executive at electrolysis startup Verdagy in Morro Bay.Blue hydrogen has its own cost issues. It requires vast underground real estate. Both will require new pipelines to ship the gas where it’s needed. Trucks won’t cut it in the long run — even compressed hydrogen gas would require 20 tanker trucks to transport the same amount of energy that a single truck with a load of diesel fuel can deliver.On top of all that, the permitting process and local opposition to industrial development, with all the lawsuits that entails, can be added to the list of challenges.But if it works, by the middle of this century, thousands of diesel-powered semis will be replaced with quieter, cleaner hydrogen trucks. Steel, glass and other essential products can be produced spewing far less planet-warming, health-damaging pollution. Perhaps even commercial aviation could see a clean revolution. To the federal government and the state of California, that future is worth a multibillion-dollar bet.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.