Hydrogen has become ripe with hype — the answer is blowing in the wind.

From an Article by Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com, November 27, 2022

>>> In the United States, the Department of Energy is doling out billions of dollars in federal funding to create up to 10 “hydrogen hubs”.

>>> International Renewable Energy Agency: diverting too much green energy toward hydrogen production could be counterproductive.

Contrary to much decarbonization hype, jumping on the green hydrogen bandwagon is not a silver bullet solution to climate change. In fact, it’s a double-edged sword. A versatile energy carrier, hydrogen is projected to play a major part in decarbonization of global manufacturing and industrial supply chains, but its production, transport, and conversion require major inversions of energy and investment that could slow down the rest of the green energy transition if mismanaged.

Hydrogen is touted as a key element in any decarbonization trajectory because unlike solar and wind energy, hydrogen can be used as a combustible fuel source. This means that it can replace fossil fuels in industrial furnaces, but instead of emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses when burned, it leaves behind nothing but water vapor. The implications of a wide-scale replacement in high-heat industrial applications are enormous. “Replacing the fossil fuels now used in furnaces that reach 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,732 degrees Fahrenheit) with hydrogen gas could make a big dent in the 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions that now come from industry,” Bloomberg Green wrote last year in report titled “Why Hydrogen Is the Hottest Thing in Green Energy.”

The problem is that hydrogen is only as green as the energy source used to make it. The process of creating hydrogen is energy intensive, and the vast majority of hydrogen being produced today is made using fossil fuels. This is referred to as gray hydrogen, and it is already used widely in global industry. Green hydrogen is made with all renewable energy sources. ‘Blue hydrogen’ is also sometimes used as a third designation referring to hydrogen produced using natural gas, which yields lower emissions than other fossil fuels and is seen by some as a stepping stone to full decarbonization.

While it seems like it would be a no-brainer that the increased production and consumption of green hydrogen would be an obvious win for the energy transition, however, the reality is not so simple. A new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) warns against the “indiscriminate use of hydrogen,” cautioning policy-makers to weigh their priorities carefully and to consider that extensive use of hydrogen “may not be in line with the requirements of a decarbonised world.” The report goes on to single out green hydrogen, arguing that it “requires dedicated renewable energy that could be used for other end uses.” As such, diverting too much green energy toward hydrogen production could actually slow down the decarbonization movement as a whole.

According to current projections, hydrogen use is going to skyrocket between now and 2050 in order to meet the energy and fuel demands of a net-zero emissions future. In G-7 countries alone, hydrogen use could balloon to four to seven times its current size by mid-century.

In the United Kingdom, the government is experimenting with the use of hydrogen to heat homes in the midst of a major energy crisis. By next year the nation will have chosen its very first “hydrogen village” to take part in a two-year pilot program. Not everyone is enthusiastic about the experiment, but it is likely just the beginning of such ventures as European nations move to shore up domestic energy independence while simultaneously trying to reach their stated emissions targets.

In the United States, the Department of Energy is doling out billions of dollars in federal funding to create up to 10 “hydrogen hubs” across the nation. These would function as “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers and connective infrastructure located in close proximity.” And the $7 billion dollars earmarked for the hubs is only one part of hydrogen investment at the federal level. The Inflation Reduction Act also provisioned a clean hydrogen production tax credit and created other decarbonization incentives such as carbon capture tax credits that could prove to be a boon to the nascent but fast-growing green hydrogen sector.

On the whole this is good news for the energy transition and for global climate goals. But the growth of the green hydrogen industry will need to be balanced with other energy needs going forward for a smooth trajectory toward decarbonization. (Such a balance is not happening. Moreover, decarbonization needs to mean LESS production of greenhouse gases rather than relying on CO2 removal from the atmosphere, an extremely expensive activity at a scale that would make a difference. DGN)

The hydrogen storage challenges are substantial .....

From an Explainer Article by Quinn Glabicki, Public Source, 8/8/22

Nature’s simplest element is at the center of a new energy strategy that has won the support of much of the Pittsburgh region’s leadership, while drawing scorn from sustainability advocates who say it would actually entrench the carbon economy.

As proponents tout the potential of so-called blue hydrogen to shepherd our region to a sustainable future, climate scientists and financial analysts question the viability — technologically, economically and ideologically — of developing a hydrogen hub reliant on natural gas and carbon capture in Western Pennsylvania.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed last November contained $8 billion appropriated for four “clean hydrogen hubs” nationwide. In May, Gov. Tom Wolf announced that his administration would pursue the federal funds for Pennsylvania, and the state’s bipartisan congressional delegation threw its weight behind the effort in June. Even before that, a group of local industrial titans including Shell, EQT and U.S. Steel issued a joint press release pledging support for the idea.

With the process still firmly in the beginning stages, questions remain about how a hydrogen hub would be implemented, who gets a say in that process and whether it advances climate goals.

PublicSource spoke with climate scientists, financial analysts, critics and industry stakeholders in an effort to better understand the status and viability of the proposed hydrogen hub. Here are some of the questions and emerging answers.

What does hydrogen have to do with energy? When hydrogen burns, it produces heat and the only byproduct is water. The most abundant element in the universe, however, is itself not a source of energy.

“Hydrogen is another form of energy storage, like batteries,” said Neil Donahue, a climate scientist and professor of chemical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University [CMU]. “Batteries are not a form of energy, nor is hydrogen.” The question, says Donahue: Where does the energy needed to produce hydrogen come from?

Renewables, fossil fuels and nuclear power are all potential energy sources for hydrogen production. Each occupies a corresponding space on a figurative color wheel often used in discussions of hydrogen power.

>> Green hydrogen is made using renewables like solar and wind energy through electrolysis to isolate the element.

>> Blue hydrogen is produced using natural gas, and the carbon emissions are captured and stored underground using carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology.

>> When hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels but the carbon is released into the atmosphere, it’s known as gray hydrogen.

>> Nuclear power can also be used to create hydrogen in a process known as pink hydrogen.

>> Regardless of the energy input, the hydrogen produced is identical.

Experts say that hydrogen, when produced cleanly, has significant potential to reduce global carbon emissions, particularly among heavy industries like steel and concrete manufacturing, in large-scale transportation like trucking and aviation, and as a vehicle for energy storage in fuel cells. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s [IPCC] climate mitigation report released earlier this year listed hydrogen as a viable pathway to net-zero carbon emissions.

What is a hydrogen hub?

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law describes a regional clean hydrogen hub as “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers and connective infrastructure located in close proximity.” The bill dictates that two of the four envisioned hubs are destined for areas “with the greatest natural gas resources.”

Because of abundant natural gas resources and infrastructure in Western Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio and West Virginia, a hydrogen hub in this region would in all likelihood be blue — that is, it would source the energy needed to produce hydrogen from natural gas, at least to start.

….. see this extensive Article from the ‘Public Source’ …

#######+++++++#######+++++++#######

Public Power Officials Play Key Roles With Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association

Douglas County PUD General Manager Gary Ivory and Tacoma Power Director Jackie Flowers are playing key roles with the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association (PNWH2), serving as the association’s secretary and treasurer, respectively.

PNWH2 recently completed its formation with election of Washington Commerce Director Lisa Brown as chair and Oregon Department of Energy Director Janine Benner as vice chair of the board.

The group is a non-profit, public-private partnership leading a regional effort to land a share of the U.S. Department of Energy’s $8 billion investment in a nationwide network of clean hydrogen hubs under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Formed at the direction of the Washington State Legislature, PNWH2 is currently preparing a final call for projects for consideration in its proposal to DOE.

A final request for information for individual project proposals is opening in early September. The RFI will be posted on Washington’s Electronic Business Solutions (WEBS) portal. More Information is available on the PNWH2 website and by emailing info@pnwh2.com.

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

Build Back Better Lives Again, Now With Green Hydrogen

President Biden’s signature Build Back Better bill fell into the dustbin of history last summer, but apparently the US Department of Commerce did not get the memo. The agency has just put up $50 million for a green hydrogen hub in the New Orleans region under a new program called the Build Back Better Regional Challenge (BBBRC). That’s going to be a tough row to hoe, considering the grip of fossil fuel stakeholders on the Pelican State. However, Build Back Better is all about transformation, right?

Follow The Money To Green Hydrogen ~ In an interesting twist, South Louisiana’s BBBRC grant dovetails with the U.S. Energy Department’s $8 billion plan to create a network of regional “Clean Hydrogen Hubs” throughout the US. The plan is funded through last year’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

The new grant could give H2theFuture a leg up on the sustainable H2 competition. They’ll need all they help they can get. Also competing for a share of the $8 billion pot is a powerful alliance of six northeast coastal states that are primed and ready to tap into their offshore wind resources. That group initially launched with Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. Maine and Rhode Island have also hopped on board.

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

Didado Electric to Partner with Newpoint Gas on Advanced Hydrogen Generation and Carbon Sequestration Project in Ohio

Didado Electric announced today that it has signed a teaming agreement with Newpoint Gas to serve as a design assist and installation partner and provide electrical and grid services work on the redevelopment of the former U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) into an advanced hydrogen generation, decarbonization and combustion clean energy manufacturing facility near Piketon, Ohio.

The centerpiece of the h2Trillium Energy and Manufacturing (h2TEAM) Complex, the $1.5 billion project will be an integrated energy system – closed loop manufacturing facility powered by clean hydrogen, with carbon sequestration. At peak, in the construction phase, it will provide approximately 2,900 jobs and, when finished, will produce clean silicon, ammonia, and power.

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

Governor Hochul Announces $16.6 Million in Awards for Five Long Duration Energy Storage Projects To Help Harness Renewable Energy and Provide Stored Energy to New York’s Electric Grid

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced $16.6 million in awards for five long duration energy storage projects that will help harness renewable energy and provide stored energy to New York’s electric grid. Governor Hochul also announced an additional $17 million in competitive funding available for projects that advance development and demonstration of scalable innovative long duration energy storage technologies, including hydrogen. The projects will support the current Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act goal to install 3,000 megawatts of energy storage by 2030 while facilitating further development to 6,000 megawatts.

Governor Hochul made today’s announcement at the 2022 Advanced Energy Conference in New York City. These awards and new funding are being made available through the Renewable Optimization and Energy Storage Innovation Program administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The awards and funding will advance renewable energy integration and reduce harmful emissions from reliance on fossil fuels. The $16.6 million in awards will support the following projects:

>>> Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. – $2.7 million – To develop, design and construct two stand-alone energy storage systems and perform field demonstrations of a six-hour zinc hybrid cathode energy storage system in New York City to help demonstrate that zinc hybrid technology is economically competitive with lithium-ion.

>>> JC Solutions, LLC dba RCAM Technologies – $1.2 million – To develop a 3D concrete printed marine pumped hydroelectric storage system that integrates directly with offshore wind development in support of grid resiliency and reduced reliance on fossil fuel plants to meet periods of peak electric demand.

>>> Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC- $12.5 million – To demonstrate nuclear-hydrogen fueled peak power generation paired with a long duration hydrogen energy storage unit to help reduce emissions from the New York Independent System Operator electric grid.

>>> Power to Hydrogen – $100,000 – To develop a Reversible Fuel Cell System for Hydrogen Production and Energy Storage called the Clean Energy Bridge and to help facilitate the system’s readiness for demonstration and commercial adoption.

>>> ROCCERA, LLC – $100,000 – To evaluate and demonstrate a novel commercially viable Solid Oxide Electrolyzer Cell prototype for clean hydrogen production together with a corresponding scalable, more efficient manufacturing process.

We can do better, we need to do better, let’s try harder!

Press Release from Karuna Jaguar, Center for Biological Diversity & Peter Hart, Food & Water Watch, July 29, 2022

WASHINGTON— More than 350 conservation and community groups, representing millions of people, called on President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer today to reject fossil fuel expansion during negotiations over a reconciliation package.

The groups also urged Biden to use the full suite of his executive authority to stop issuing federal fossil fuel leases and deny permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure, and to declare a climate emergency, which would unlock powerful tools to combat the climate crisis.

“Permitting new fossil fuel projects will further entrench us in a fossil fuel economy for decades to come — and constitutes a violent betrayal of your pledge to combat environmental racism and destruction,” the groups’ lettersaid. “New fossil fuel projects will also lock workers into a dying industry and delay the growth in sectors that will support jobs of the future.”

Two provisions buried in the Inflation Reduction Act would require massive oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, reinstate an illegal 2021 Gulf lease sale and mandate that millions more acres of public lands be offered for leasing before any new solar or wind energy projects could be built on public lands or waters. These leasing provisions lock in decades of additional fossil fuel pollution and continue a racist legacy of sacrificing environmental justice communities.

Greenlighting new fossil fuel extraction is incompatible with climate science and the administration’s climate goals. The science is clear that the president cannot approve any new fossil fuel leases and still stay within the U.S. carbon budget for keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Communities at the front lines of the climate emergency are already dealing with and dying from ever-worsening fires, hurricanes, flooding, heat waves and drought. A recent analysis showed that more than 40% of Americans lived in areas hit by climate disasters last year, a number that would grow if the fossil fuel-friendly provisions in the IRA become law.

Letter signers, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Climate Justice Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace USA, Indigenous Environmental Network, Our Revolution and Sunrise Movement, are urging Democratic leaders to reject fossil fuel expansion and stand with the communities that voted them into office.

>>>>> COMMENTS AND QUOTES TELL MORE ABOUT IT!

“We can’t let the renewable energy transition be held hostage by fossil fuel companies,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Manchin bill is a devil’s bargain that ignores science and locks us into at least a decade of new oil and gas extraction. There’s a way forward that doesn’t spew more greenhouse gas pollution into the air and harm frontline communities, and it means eliminating these giveaways to the fossil-fuel industry.”

“This bill should not be considered a climate victory,” said Jim Walsh, policy director for Food & Water Watch. “Locking in more drilling and fracking on public lands and waters, billions in subsidies for the myth of carbon capture, and fast-tracking permit approvals for gas pipelines and exports are exactly the policies fueling the climate crisis and harming public health with increasing pollution in our air and water. Lawmakers who support real climate solutions should reject this deal until the fossil fuel handouts are removed.”

“The Inflation Reduction Act may be the most Washington can offer right now, but it’s a far cry from what’s actually needed to address the climate crisis,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. “The investments in renewables, energy efficiency and Superfund clean-ups will make a difference, but communities and the climate continue to be sacrificed to Sen. Manchin’s fossil fuel demands.”

Pittsburgh and Allegheny County dominate western Pennsylvania

PITTSBURGH – County Executive Rich Fitzgerald issued the following statement regarding the release of the 2022 U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER), an annual study which tracks employment trends across the energy sector and within key energy technologies:

“The USEER report showed that U.S. energy sector jobs grew 4% over 2020, outpacing overall U.S. employment, while also adding more than 300,000 jobs in the past year. Pennsylvania is one of the top states in terms of percent growth in transmission, distribution and storage energy jobs, and its energy workers represent 3.3% of all U.S. energy jobs, and 4.6% of total state employment. And employers in Pennsylvania are more optimistic than their peers across the country about energy sector jobs growth in the coming year.

“It’s easy to see why. Energy, and our transition to clean energy, has really been this region’s strong suit. We’ve been looking at and finding ways to make the transition from reliance on fossil fuels well before addressing climate change became a priority. We have the country’s first Green Building Alliance, and its largest 2030 District. We have focused on reducing our energy footprint for existing buildings, while also talking about standards for new construction. Pittsburgh International Airport has invested in a microgrid and generates its own power from natural gas and the largest solar farm in the county.

Pittsburgh Regional Transit has begun work to electrify its bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Our building trades have invested in training, green technologies and innovations to build a green workforce. We have invested in hydro by entering into a power purchase agreement for renewable electricity from a new low-impact, run-of-river hydroelectric facility on the Ohio River. The development of autonomous vehicles in our region will assist in net reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Wabtec is located here and is exploring the electrification of rail.

“No matter the industry, this region is working towards net-zero emissions. The USEER reflects that investment and our commitment. President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $62 billion for the Department of Energy to expand access to energy efficiency, deliver reliable and clean power, and build new technologies. We are thrilled to have had Secretary Granholm here today to release the report and to convene a roundtable of officials to talk about the opportunities for good-paying jobs that will drive clean energy across the country and in this region, while also revitalizing our manufacturing industry.”

“One of the things that we heard today was that between now and 2030, as industries across the globe look to decarbonize, there will be an approximately $23 trillion market in which clean energy jobs will thrive. We look forward to the opportunities and the future growth that these investments will mean to our region. We partner better than anyone – from private companies to public institutions to the building trades, universities and the philanthropic community – and will work collaboratively and cooperatively to meet the needs of our region and this country in clean energy.”

# # #

Office of County Executive Rich Fitzgerald
101 Courthouse │ 436 Grant Street │ Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-350-6500 │ Fax: 412-350-6512 │www.alleghenycounty.us

Akzoa plant produces hydrogen by electrolysis (see below)

From an Article by Justine Calma, The Verge, June 7, 2022

PHOTO in ARTICLE ~ A new plant in Puertollano, Spain, will be Europe’s largest production site for green hydrogen for industrial use.

The Department of Energy kicked off a new $8 billion program yesterday to develop a network of hubs for producing hydrogen as a clean fuel. It’s a milestone for one of the Biden administration’s most contentious strategies for tackling climate change.

Hydrogen has the potential to slash emissions from some of the industries that are the hardest to clean up. It might replace coal used in making steel or fossil fuels that power diesel trucks and cargo ships. When burned, it produces water vapor instead of greenhouse gas emissions (although it can still contribute to nitrogen oxide pollution in the air).

The tricky part is that not all hydrogen is created the same way ~

The tricky part is that not all hydrogen is created the same way and can come with different benefits and pitfalls. At the moment, most hydrogen is made using gas. To make hydrogen from gas, methane reacts with high-temperature steam under high pressure. That process releases carbon dioxide, and then there’s the threat to the climate that comes from methane leaks across the entire gas industry. Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

So, the Biden administration needs to clean up hydrogen production before it can use hydrogen to decarbonize other industries. The DOE laid out part of its plan to clean up that process yesterday when it filed a Notice of Intent (NOI), a document saying that it plans to announce a funding opportunity in September or October to develop clean hydrogen hubs, which it calls “H2Hubs.”

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides funding for at least four hubs; the NOI says the DOE is considering funding between six and 10 hubs to start its program. Of those hubs, at least one is supposed to make hydrogen using renewable energy. Another hub is supposed to power hydrogen production with nuclear energy. And, at least one hub should be able to show it can make clean hydrogen from fossil fuels by pairing it with technologies that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions. But the DOE also says it will look for at least two hubs in regions with “abundant natural gas resources,” which could lead to more H2Hubs running on fossil fuels than renewable energy.

Clean energy experts are watching the DOE’s moves closely when it comes to hydrogen. If the DOE isn’t careful about what kinds of projects it chooses, all the hype for hydrogen could give the gas industry a boost at a time when research shows the world should be phasing out the dirty fuel to prevent more catastrophic climate change.

Hydrogen production that pairs gas with carbon capture doesn’t create a truly clean fuel and could even lead to more greenhouse gas emissions in certain scenarios. When that kind of hydrogen is used to heat buildings, for example, it can be even dirtier than the heating systems it replaces, researchers from Stanford and Cornell found in a study published last year. That’s primarily because gas production and use is rife with methane leaks from wells, pipelines, and even appliances in homes and businesses. It’s a big climate problem that could extend to gas-based hydrogen hubs.

Hydrogen production that pairs gas with carbon capture doesn’t create a truly clean fuel
Because of that risk, the Department of Energy needs to tighten up its standards for what’s considered a clean hydrogen project, say experts at the nonprofits Union of Concerned Scientists and RMI. Its $8 billion in funding for clean hydrogen comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed last year, and the language in the law only considers the climate impact of CO2 emissions at the site of hydrogen production.

A safer approach, according to the nonprofits, would be to scrutinize all greenhouse gas emissions that come from the entire supply chain and the process of making hydrogen. In a sign that the DOE might keep that in mind as it assesses applications for funding, the NOI it issued this week says the department “intends to also evaluate full lifecycle emissions for each application and will give preference to applications that reduce GHG emissions across the full project lifecycle.”

Truly “green hydrogen,” in contrast, is made with renewable energy-powered electrolysis that splits water to get to the hydrogen. This process is less polluting, but, at the moment, it’s still more expensive than making hydrogen with gas and carbon capture because electrolyzers are pricey.

The Biden administration is working to bring that cost down. President Joe Biden authorized the use of the Defense Production Act yesterday to bolster domestic supply chains for clean energy technologies, including electrolyzers. The Department of Energy launched an initiative last year aimed at dropping the cost of clean hydrogen by 80 percent to $1 per kilogram by the end of the decade.

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>>

See Also ~ AkzoNobel unveils plans to build Europe’s largest green hydrogen facility

AkzoNobel, the global paints, coating and specialty chemicals firm and WorldGBC Partner, has unveiled plans to build Europe’s largest green hydrogen production plant in a bid to cut global CO2 emissions.

The facility, to be built in the Netherlands in collaboration with gas network operator Gasunie, would use a 20 megawatt (MW) water electrolysis unit to convert sustainable electricity into hydrogen. This would mark an important step in scaling up the technology, which is seen as crucial for reducing CO2 emissions.

The planned installation would produce around 3,000 tonnes of green hydrogen each year, which can either be used by AkzoNobel’s chemicals division or be sold to third parties, such as public transport companies using hydrogen buses.

The eventual aim is to convert and store sustainable energy in the form of hydrogen on a much larger scale, with plants of at least 100MW. So far, the largest planned unit in the Netherlands has a capacity of 1MW. Industrial factories in the Netherlands currently use more than 800,000 tons of hydrogen produced by natural gas each year.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

From the Report of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Executive Summary~ This report, the 2021 U.S. Geothermal Power Production and District Heating Market Report, was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Geothermal Rising (previously the Geothermal Resources Council, or GRC), with funding support from the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

The report presents analysis of the current state of the U.S. geothermal market and industry for both the power production and district heating sectors, with consideration of developing power projects.

Geothermal heat pumps, although a key technology in the wider use of geothermal resources, are outside the scope of this report.

U.S. Geothermal Power Generation — Key Findings

>> Current U.S. geothermal power generation nameplate capacity is 3,673 MW from 93 power plants. Of this capacity, 1,300 MW are located on public lands.

>> California and Nevada contribute more than 90% of the current U.S. geothermal power generation, with additional contributions from plants in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah.

>> From the end of 2015 through the end of 2019, the United States brought seven new geothermal power plants online in Nevada, California, and New Mexico, adding 186 MW of nameplate capacity. In the same time period, 11 plants were retired or classified as non- operational, subtracting 103 MW of nameplate capacity. The remaining difference in capacity from 2015 to 2019 can be attributed to the reduction of nameplate capacity at individual plants.

>> After the data for this report were collected, Ormat brought the Steamboat Hills expansion in Nevada online, increasing its generating capacity by 19 MW. In addition, in late 2020, the Puna geothermal plant was brought back online, which should increase geothermal net-generation numbers in 2021.

>> Geothermal companies operating in the United States have a combined 58 active developing projects and prospects across nine states, with a majority located in Nevada.

>> Of these projects, five are in Phase IV, the phase immediately preceding project completion. Three are located in Nevada, and two are in California.

>> From November 2019 through September 2020, nine new geothermal Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) have been signed across four states. Included in these agreements are plans for the first two geothermal power plants to be built in California in a decade—Hell’s Kitchen and Casa Diablo IV.

>> Geothermal power provides several non-cost advantages, including supplying continuous baseload power, ancillary grid services, resilience, environmental benefits, and a small land footprint compared to other renewable energy technologies.

>> Twenty-eight states have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that count geothermal power as an eligible resource, seven of which include direct use. RPSs support geothermal development by requiring a certain amount of electricity sold by utilities to come from renewable energy sources.

U.S. Geothermal District Heating — Key Findings

• Currently, there are 23 geothermal district heating (GDH) systems in the United States, with a capacity totaling more than 75 MW of thermal energy (MWth). The systems range in size from 0.1 MWth to over 20 MWth.

• Of these 23 commercial projects, 10 received DOE loan and grant support. Federal, state, and local funding support have proven critical to develop a majority of the existing GDH projects in the United States.

• The oldest GDH installation dates from 1892 in Boise, Idaho, and the most recent installation was completed in 2017 in Alturas, California. The remaining systems are located in California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota.

• The majority of the GDH systems in the United States are more than 30 years old.

• The average U.S. levelized cost of heat (LCOH) value for GDH systems is $54/MWh, slightly lower than the average European LCOH value of $69/MWh. However, this LCOH is slightly higher than the 2019 average U.S. residential natural gas LCOH. Estimated LCOH for existing U.S. systems ranges from $15 to $105/MWh, a range that is consistent with the range of LCOH for existing European GDH systems.

• U.S. GDH systems tend to be smaller in size (average of 4 MWth) than European GDH systems (continent-wide average of ~17 MWth), and orders of magnitude smaller than the average GDH system in China (~1,000 MWth).

• U.S. GDH systems run at 23% capacity, on average. This low utilization factor is due to frequent operation at less than full capacity and the seasonality of heating needs (i.e., the system is not needed for satisfying heating demands year-round).

• As of 2020, few policy mechanisms intended to support GDH development are in place in the United States.

Conclusions ~ This report is intended to provide policymakers, regulators, developers, researchers, engineers, financiers, and other stakeholders with up-to-date information and data reflecting the 2019 geothermal power production and district heating markets, technologies, and trends in the United States. Geothermal Rising collected U.S. geothermal power production data via a questionnaire sent to all known U.S. geothermal operators and developers. This questionnaire requested information about both existing power production capacity and developing projects, which was then added to an existing GEA database and shared with NREL. For GDH systems, an NREL geothermal direct-use database
was updated with information obtained from news articles, publications, and interviews conducted in 2020 with project owners, operators, and other stakeholders.

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

Geothermal Energy Development in West Virginia ~ Here is a link to the House Bill 4098 that passed in WV on March 12, 2022, the last day of the Legislative Session for this year. It remains for the approval of the Governor, which is expected.

https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML/2022_SESSIONS/RS/bills/HB4098%20SUB.pdf

Should DOE’s Vision of an Ohio Valley CO2 Hub be DOA?

From the Blog of Sean O’Leary, Ohio River Valley Institute, 1/27/22

The Ohio River Valley Institute (ORVI) responds to a DOE request for information about carbon capture deployment.

Last year, a report titled, “Building to Net-Zero: A U.S. Policy Blueprint for Gigaton-Scale CO² Transport and Storage Infrastructure,” captured the imagination of the Biden administration and the US Department of Energy (DOE). The report envisions an energy system and manufacturing sector that can continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels because power plants and factories would be retrofitted with new technologies to capture their carbon emissions, which would then be transported through thousands of miles of pipelines to massive underground storage caverns.

The report is the product of a collaboration between the Energy Futures Initiative and the AFL-CIO, and it recommends the creation of three “CO2 Infrastructure Hubs” in Wyoming, along the Gulf Coast, and in the Ohio River Valley. The figure (image) above from “Building to Net-Zero: A U.S. Policy Blueprint for Gigaton-Scale CO² Transport and Storage Infrastructure”, Labor Energy Partnership, 2021.

The question is whether these hubs are effective and necessary solutions for the climate crisis or, as in the movie, a detour into financial and political opportunism that fails to solve the problem while inflicting immense financial and environmental costs. The Ohio Valley CO2 hub at least appears to be the latter. The Ohio River Valley Institute explained why that is the case in its response to a recent DOE request for information about the demonstration and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and direct air capture (DAC) technologies.

In its response, ORVI made three points, which it supported with research findings, to explain why the Ohio River Valley CO2 Hub is a fatally flawed vision.

1. Expanding or perpetuating Appalachian coal and natural gas activity, even if successful, will contribute little or nothing to job growth and prosperity in the region and may even be counterproductive.

2. Because fossil fuel resources do not contribute to increased prosperity and improved quality of life in host communities, any carbon management project DOE considers for funding must be justified purely on the basis of its market competitiveness and greenhouse gas reduction, which, given the technologies’ cost, precludes broad-based adoption in the electricity generating sector and narrows the viability window to niche applications and industries.

3. Because carbon management technology is viable in only niche applications and industries, massive infrastructure projects, such as region-wide pipeline networks and storage hubs for captured carbon and natural gas liquids, are not economically viable and cannot be cost-justified.

In support of these points ORVI cited the failure of recent fossil fuel expansion in Appalachia to deliver job growth despite investments in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We also pointed out that the incremental cost to retrofit coal and gas-fired power plants with CCS capabilities would be greater than the market value of the electricity they generate. That would make them either completely uncompetitive with clean, renewable resources or the wholesale price of electricity would more than double and potentially increase Americans’ utility bills by more than $100 billion per year.

Finally, pointing to the “Building to Net Zero” report’s observation that coal-fired power plants are responsible for over 90% of the region’s carbon emissions, ORVI’s response explained that, if implementing CCS isn’t financially viable in the electric generating sector, then any economic rationale for a massive pipeline and storage network that would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to construct collapses.

These findings make the viability window for proposed carbon capture and sequestration and related carbon management projects quite narrow. For that reason, ORVI encouraged the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) to include in the range of carbon management technologies and projects it considers ones that are devoted to remediating the impacts of past and ongoing fossil fuel activities, which have long saddled the region. These burdens include hundreds of thousands of orphaned and abandoned mines, wells, and toxic waste sites the remediation of which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide large numbers of jobs in areas that struggle most, encourage economic development, and enhance quality of life, making the region more attractive to both businesses and families.

Whether DOE will apply the kind of stern criteria for economic competitiveness and viability that ORVI recommends when considering proposed carbon management projects is at least doubtful. In December the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), released a report that is highly critical of DOE’s past conduct in selecting and administering funding for carbon capture projects.

The GAO report found that, of eight coal carbon capture projects for which DOE provided $684 million in funding between 2010 and 2017, “Three projects were withdrawn—two prior to receiving funding—and one was built and entered operations, but halted operations in 2020 due to changing economic conditions.” Also, “DOE terminated funding agreements with the other four projects prior to construction.” In short, none of the power system carbon capture projects that DOE supported is alive today.

That’s in part because of a persistent failure to adequately take into account issues of market competitiveness and viability. But it’s also because of political pressure within the agency to waive standard project selection practices and bypass cost controls. The report makes multiple references to DOE “at the direction of senior leadership” failing to adhere to and enforce cost guidelines.

DOE will take a few months to process responses to its RFI and probably later this year will issue a request for proposals for projects that will be considered for funding.

View the full letter of Sean O’Leary here. >>>

https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/DOE-RFI-Response.pdf

>>> Sean O’Leary, senior researcher, energy and petrochemicals, is a native of Wheeling, WV. He has written about coal, natural gas, and their role in the economies of Appalachia in a book, a newspaper column, and blog titled, “The State of My State”.

Carbon dioxide is difficult to remove AND near impossible to store

Newsprint Article by Mike Tony, Charleston Gazette Mail, 10/28/21

Julio Friedmann, senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, mentioned the impacts of the climate crisis before looking ahead to the future of carbon dioxide removal during a webinar hosted by the WV Center on Climate Change Tuesday night. He went biblical to describe the extreme wildfires, flooding and freezing devastating the country more and more as the climate crisis intensifies.

“We’re having our family stroll through the Book of Revelation this year,” Friedmann said. They are keenly aware that failing to decarbonize at an unprecedented scale in the years to come will result in even more apocalyptic climate impacts.

“If you don’t think this is hard, you’re not paying attention,” Friedmann said. The future of carbon removal, though, is wide open and could see West Virginia play a key, job-creating role in decarbonization efforts. “We’re going to need to make a bunch of stuff here,” Friedmann said.

Carbon management and removal are poised to become the largest markets in history, Friedmann said. He noted that some 100 countries have net-zero emissions goals and alluded to a March report from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a London-based energy and climate analysis nonprofit, that more than a fifth of the world’s largest 2,000 publicly traded companies have made a net-zero commitment.

Friedmann presented a PowerPoint slide that called carbon capture, use and storage technology “mature, cost effective technology for CO2 reduction & removal.” But carbon capture, use and storage technology, which gathers and compresses carbon from emission sources for reuse or underground storage so it will not reenter the atmosphere, has been too uneconomical to be widely deployed. It has also faced criticism from some clean energy advocates fearing that it could be used to justify lingering fossil fuel dependence.

The Global CCS Institute, a think tank that aims to accelerate carbon capture and storage deployment, reported earlier this year that there were 26 operating CCS facilities worldwide, with 34 in early or advanced development.

Friedmann, though, cited U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports from recent years including carbon capture and storage technologies as a critical component of decarbonization models.

Politicians representing constituencies like West Virginia — Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., most prominent among them as Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairman — have embraced developing carbon capture, use and storage technologies as a way to keep coal in the energy mix.

The bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate in August would authorize more than $12 billion for carbon capture technologies, a provision taken from Manchin’s Energy Infrastructure Act that served as legislative text for key portions of the bill.

West Virginia Public Service Commission Chairwoman Charlotte Lane also is interested in carbon capture technology and recently asked Manchin to support federal funding for installing carbon capture technology at the Mountaineer coal-fired generating plant in Mason County.

But a briefing document that PSC General Counsel Jessica Lane indicated was discussed at a meeting between Lane and Manchin last month, says that a carbon capture project to treat the slipstream of just 20% of the plant capacity likely would cost $850 million to $1 billion to construct.

The document acknowledges that federal funding of close to 100% of project capital costs would be needed, since the unsubsidized cost for customers would be unsustainable. The document was first obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog group that supports a transition to clean energy.

American Electric Power deemed carbon capture technology uneconomical in its request for $448.3 million in cost recovery to make environmental upgrades at three in-state coal-fired plants federally required to keep them operating past 2028. The PSC granted that request earlier this month, after Kentucky and Virginia utility regulators deemed the proposed upgrades uneconomical.

Friedmann noted that Microsoft, Amazon and Shopify are among the companies to buy direct air capture carbon removal. Direct air capture is a technology that captures carbon dioxide directly from the air. The carbon removal market, Friedmann observed, needs much greater structure and definition.

“We need to be able to quantify CO2 removals and validate them in the marketplace,” Friedmann said. “Today in the market, there’s no supply, there’s no demand, there’s no transparency, there’s no regulation and there’s no actual exchange. Other than that, the market’s perfect.” Friedmann predicted that the cost of direct air capture technology would come down “pretty fast” as more is deployed.

Fellow panelist and Wayne County native Erin Burns, executive director of Carbon180, a Washington, D.C.-based climate-focused nonprofit, emphasized the difference between carbon capture, which is the process of capturing carbon from a smokestack or flue before it enters the atmosphere, and carbon removal, which takes carbon from the atmosphere and doesn’t have to involve fossil fuel production or extraction.

“For a long time, people have talked about opportunities around employment in places like West Virginia around point-source carbon capture,” Burns said. “But I think that that promise has never appeared in any meaningful way.” She argued that carbon removal could be more impactful in West Virginia from forest preservation and expansion to steelmaking and direct air capture facility work as that technology is scaled up. “Carbon removal is not a silver bullet for West Virginia’s future,” Burns said, “but I think it could be an interesting part of it.”

The webinar took place just hours after the U.S. Department of Energy announced $14.5 million in available funding to leverage existing low-carbon energy to scale up direct air capture technology combined with reliable carbon storage. The agency called advancing direct air capture deployment critical to slowing climate change and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. The department intends for the funding to facilitate engineering studies of advanced direct air capture systems capable of removing 5,000 tons of carbon per year from the air — the equivalent of electricity used by more than 900 homes in the United States for one year.

“[T]here are a lot of people working very, very hard to try to not do it poorly,” panelist Emily Grubert, deputy assistant secretary for carbon management at the Department of Energy, said of carbon removal. “There are pathways where this is done really well and really provides an important net benefit to the world. We can get there, but it’s going to be a hard road, and we need help.”

Office of Science to send $7 Billion on various energy projects

From a News Article by Adrian Cho, Science Magazine (AAAS), May 26, 2021

Sometimes a new presidential administration signals where it’s headed through whom it selects to lead a federal research agency. That appears to be the case with President Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) basic research wing, the Director of the Office of Science. Last month Biden tapped Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, a soil scientist at the University of California (UC), Merced, to lead the office, which has a $7 billion annual budget and is best known for funding physics, running national laboratories, and building atom smashers and other scientific megamachines.

The nomination of Berhe, 46, suggests the office will increasingly emphasize research related to climate change, scientists say. Berhe currently studies how factors such as erosion, fire, and temperature affect whether soil soaks up carbon dioxide or releases more of it into the air. She was born and raised in Eritrea.

Announced on 22 April, Berhe’s nomination delighted many environmental researchers. “She’s as star scientist as star scientists get,” says soil ecologist Bala Chaudhary of De- Paul University. Ecologist John Harte of UC Berkeley, who was Berhe’s doctoral adviser, hopes her nomination marks a shift in DOE science from esoteric conceptual problems to addressing the climate crisis. “There will be, I hope, more emphasis on science that relates to the sustainability of the human enterprise as opposed to the mere sustainability of a scientific endeavor,” he says.

Berhe has also long worked for greater diversity in the sciences, says geochemist Peggy O’Day of UC Merced. “She’s been a real leader, both on our campus as well as nationally and internationally, in advocating for people of color in science,” O’Day says. Last year, Berhe and Chaudhary published a paper in PLOS Computational Biology entitled, “Ten simple rules for building an anti-racist lab.”

But some physicists worry Berhe may have trouble guiding the often-fractious agency, citing her scant experience managing large organizations and her unusual scientific background for a position often held by physicists. According to her CV, Berhe has held one DOE grant for $200,000 and has served as interim associate dean of UC Merced’s graduate division.

As the nation’s single largest funder of the physical sciences, the Office of Science supports six research programs, including fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. Its basic energy sciences program funds chemistry, materials science, and condensed matter physics, and its advanced scientific computing program provides supercomputing for myriad studies. Biological and environmental research get 10.7% of its budget. The office owns 10 of DOE’s 17 national labs and builds big scientific facilities—the newest is a $730 million particle accelerator at Michigan State University.

The director’s job is to set priorities among the competing research programs and coordinate billion-dollar construction projects so that as one nears completion the next is ready to go, says Bill Madia, a nuclear physicist and former director of two national labs. “It’s one of the most important management jobs in science in the world,” he says. “You’re comparing priorities from bioenergy centers to neutrino experiments to exascale computers.”

Given that much of the office’s money goes to physics, Michael Lubell, a physicist at City College of New York and former head of public affairs for the American Physical Society, wonders how, as a biogeochemist, Berhe will approach those decisions. “There’s nothing in her background to suggest that she knows anything about fusion, or particle physics, or nuclear physics, or atomic physics,” he says.

Most past office directors have had a mixture of training in physics, experience running large organizations, and work history with DOE. But that background is not a prerequisite for success, says Raymond Orbach, a theoretical physicist and former chancellor of UC Irvine who directed the office from 2002 to 2009. Orbach won plaudits for, among other things, developing a 20-year to-do list of major projects that DOE has largely followed. But he notes that he, too, was a newcomer to DOE. “One never knows how someone with no prior formal government service (e.g. me) will turn out,” he wrote in an email. The office’s most recent director, Christopher Fall, has a doctorate in neuroscience and had prior management experience at DOE and the Office of Naval Research.

No director has to do it all on her own, notes physicist Cherry Murray of the University of Arizona, who was director from 2015 to 2017. DOE has a corps of staffers who are “incredibly competent” and can help keep the agency humming, she says. “I’m not worried at all about physics research dropping by the wayside” under Berhe, she says. “That will continue, just as under me biology research continued.” Murray says she is curious to see where Berhe will head in setting policy.

If Berhe is confirmed, her success will largely rest with budgetmakers in Congress. For example, even though former President Donald Trump repeatedly tried to slash the office’s budget, Congress increased it by 31% over 4 years. That boost spared Fall from having to make unpopular cuts. If the budget keeps growing, Berhe may enjoy a long honeymoon with DOE-sponsored researchers.

Should budgets tighten, she could face the challenge of retaining the support of the community while picking winners and losers. Berhe has the leadership skills to meet that potential challenge, Harte says. “I would call her steadfast with good humor and an extraordinary thoughtfulness,” he says. “She will gather the respect of others because of her intense intelligence.”

The CPP or an ACE in the hole

Editorial of the Morgantown Dominion Post, Sunday, June 23, 2019

Call it a policy of diminishing returns or retreats from a worsening climate crisis. We’re never going to sway the Trump administration on its decision to short circuit the Clean Power Plan. But technological trends and markets might, not to mention the power sector continuing to decarbonize faster than expected.

Yet, last week the Trump administration finalized its so-called Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

Our first question to those who put politics and self-interest above competitive markets is: How can we ever expect to win a war against the primary laws of economics? You know, if there’s a demand, someone will provide the supply, as long as the incentives are high enough.

And why even if Longview Power’s president and CEO, that operates the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired plant in the world, according to him, says it’s probably the last of its kind why think otherwise Especially when he tells you next thing that’s why Longview is developing an advanced gas-fired combine cycle plant beside its coal plant.

Finally, why would you ignore gains, that by some estimates show our country is already anywhere from a third to two-thirds of the way to meeting the Clean Power Plan’s goal of reducing carbon emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030?

After all, aren’t happy days here again for the economy, despite the nation’s utilities already having drastically lowered emissions.

Most have no delusions about coal ever reaching the production numbers of the past and the outlook for this industry here and nationwide is uncertain, at best; grim, at worst.

Though some maintain you dance with the one that brought you, natural gas ditched coal more than a decade ago. More exactly, the advent of fracking around 2008 was to natural gas production what Elvis was to rock ’n’ roll.

But that was hardly the only front where the “war on coal” was waged. Increased use of renewables; heightened energy efficiencies; volatile international markets; and the depletion of thick, easy-to-mine seams all followed.

The decline in the coal industry is relentless, and though this decline may be slow and drawn out it’s just a matter of how low must it go. We reject any efforts, and hope courts do too, to roll back carbon restrictions, especially with the concerns about the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

Our country and our planet has a lot to lose, including our health, if we fail to address climate change. Rewrite the rules however you want, but any notion of coal’s resurgence is contrary to the way markets work and technology advances.

The ACE is certainly no ace in the hole for the coal industry. Indeed, it can only dig it and us into an even deeper one — at our own peril.