THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 15, 2023
Op-Ed: On Green Hydrogen
The following Op-Ed was written and submitted by Paul Plante.
Yes, people, “green” hydrogen!
While we all thought that hydrogen was actually a colorless gas, in fact we were wrong, because “green” hydrogen is actually green, not colorless, and Joe Biden is betting all of our futures on “green” hydrogen as our savior, which is to say, Joe Biden is not only going to fight the CLIMATE CRISIS with “green” hydrogen, he is going to put the beat-down on it, and give it a real good ass-whupping with “green” hydrogen that will make it holler and call “uncle,” which will mean the CLIMATE CRISIS, which never existed in the first place, except in Joe Biden’s fertile imagination, where all kinds of boogie-men roam freely, is gone for good and we can then all rest easy and be than be thankful that God in his, hers, theirs or its wisdom gave us Joe Biden as our savior!
And how do I know this?
Well, for a start, if we go back to February 15, 2022, we have the “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Advances Cleaner Industrial Sector to Reduce Emissions and Reinvigorate American Manufacturing,” where the Biden-Harris Administration informs us as follows:
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing new actions across agencies to support American leadership on clean manufacturing — including low-carbon production of the steel and aluminum we need for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels, and the clean concrete we need to upgrade our transportation infrastructure.
These actions will create more good-paying jobs and follow on a historic comeback for American factories, with 367,000 manufacturing jobs added during President Biden’s first year in office, the most in nearly 30 years.
Further strengthening our industrial base will revitalize local economies, lower prices for consumers, provide more pathways to the middle class through union jobs, and boost American competitiveness in global markets.
end quotes
Sounds great, doesn’t it, people?
Joe Biden is going the Make America Great Again, and my goodness, people, seriously, isn’t it time somebody did that?
So, under the Joe Biden and Karmela Harris Administration, we are going to have clean manufacturing, instead of dirty manufacturing like it was under the previous administration, and we are going to have low-carbon production of the steel and aluminum we need for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels, and on top of all that neat stuff, we are going to have clean concrete, as well, which we need to upgrade our transportation infrastructure, because let’s face it, people, who wants dirty concrete?
But where does “green” hydrogen fit into that picture?
Going back to the February 15, 2022 “Fact Sheet,” we have as follows on that subject:
The Department of Energy is launching major clean hydrogen initiatives of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: $8 billion for Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs that will create jobs to expand use of clean hydrogen in the industrial sector and beyond; $1 billion for a Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program to reduce costs of hydrogen produced from clean electricity; and $500 million for Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing and Recycling Initiatives to support equipment manufacturing and strong domestic supply chains.
end quote
Yes, people, lots more “clean” stuff coming our way from Joe Biden and Karmela Harris, which is cause for a major celebration all across America to show Joe and Karmela how much we love and adore them for giving us all this clean stuff, as opposed to the dirty stuff the previous administration was giving us.
So what then, is “green” or clean hydrogen as opposed to any and all other types or kinds of hydrogen that may exist out there?
According to one source, “green” hydrogen, also called renewable hydrogen, is obtained by electrolysis of water, and it is said that the most crucial thing is that this process is powered entirely by renewable energy, so it generates no polluting emissions into the atmosphere and is the cleanest and most sustainable hydrogen.
And there we are back to that magic word “clean!”
But if “green” hydrogen is obtained by electrolysis of water, doesn’t that mean that to make it, we have to sacrifice our water resources?
Of course, there is no information on that subject from either Joe Biden or Karmela Harris, probably because neither of them ever gave it a moment’s thought, just as they did not give this “green” hydrogen scheme any thought, either, a point we shall be getting to shortly in here.
But staying with this concept of “green” hydrogen made from water for the moment, we have more, as follows, to wit:
Although it is 100% sustainable and versatile, green hydrogen is expensive to produce due to the cost of energy from the renewable sources that are key to generating green hydrogen through electrolysis.
It requires more energy than other fuels to produce any kind of hydrogen, green in particular.
end quotes
And that thought takes us to what engineers like myself call an “energy budget,” another thing Joe Biden, a career hack politician who has never worked a real job in his life, and Karmela Harris, another career hack politician, have given absolutely no thought whatsoever to, which brings us to this, to wit:
Hydrogen is a highly inflammable substance and explosive in nature; it cannot be easily transported from one place to another and it can be generated by the hydrolysis of water but it is a very expensive process.
end quote
That, people, is an expression of a reality that try as he might, Joe Biden cannot simply wish away, especially that part about hydrogen cannot be easily transported from one place to another.
It is my intent, by referring to an excellent engineering analysis on the subject titled “Energy and the Hydrogen Economy” by Ulf Bossel, who studied Mechanical Engineering in Darmstadt (Germany) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where he received his Diploma Degree (fluid mechanics, thermodynamics) in 1961, and after a short work period at BBC, he continued his graduate education at the University of California at Berkeley, receiving his Ph.D. degree in 1968 for experimental research in the area of space aerodynamics, and after two years as Assistant Professor at Syracuse University he returned to Germany to lead the free molecular flow research group at the DLR in Göttingen, leaving that field for solar energy in 1976, where he was founder and first president of the German Solar Energy Society, and started his own R&D consulting firm for renewable energy technologies, and in 1986, BBC asked him to join their new technology group in Switzerland where he became involved in fuel cells in 1987 and later director of ABB’s fuel cell development efforts worldwide; and Baldur Eliasson, who studied Electrical Engineering and Astronomy at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where he received his doctorate in 1966 on a theoretical study of microwave propagation, and then he worked for three years as radio astronomer at the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena before joining the newly founded Brown Boveri (later ABB) Research Center in Switzerland in 1969, where he is in charge of ABB’s Energy and Global Change Program worldwide and reports directly to ABB’s Chief Technology Officer, while representing ABB in a number of international programs, where, for example, he is Vice Chairman of the “R&D Program on Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technologies” of the International Energy Agency and has received many international awards for his contributions to environmental sustainability, where we find in Section 8.1 The Limits of a Pure Hydrogen Economy, as follows:
The results of this analysis indicate the weakness of a “Pure-Hydrogen-Only Economy” as depicted in Figure 14.
All difficulties with the pure Hydrogen Economy appear to be directly related to the nature of hydrogen.
Most of the problems cannot be solved by additional research and development.
We have to accept that hydrogen is the lightest of all gases and, as a consequence, that its physical properties do not fully match the requirements of the energy market.
Production, packaging, storage, transfer and delivery of the gas, in essence all key component of an economy, are so energy consuming that alternatives should and will be considered.
Mankind cannot afford to waste energy for idealistic goals, but economy will look for practical solutions and select the most energy-saving procedures.
The “Pure-Hydrogen-Only Solution” may never become reality.
The degree of energy waste certainly depends on the chosen path.
Hydrogen generated from rooftop solar electricity and stored at low pressure in stationary tanks may be a viable solution for private buildings.
On the other hand, hydrogen generated in the Sahara desert, pumped to the Mediterranean Sea through pipelines, then liquefied for sea transport, docked in London and locally distributed by trucks may not provide an acceptable energy solution at all.
Too much energy is lost in the process to justify the scheme.
end quotes
So who is right?
The hack politicians pandering to the “GREENIES?”
Or the engineers?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-859258
THE ENVIRONMENT
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 15, 2023 AT 6:22 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
This thread, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, in one of a series of articles in the Cape Charles Mirror going back to September 8, 2019, and a story titled “The Great Climate Hoax” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/the-gr ... mate-hoax/ , where we were informed, as follows:
CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.
end quotes
Yes, people, the end of the world!
But that was September 8, 2019, FOUR (4) years ago, now, and still we wait, sitting on the very edge of our seats, spurred on by CLIMATE CRISIS HYSTERIA stoked up by the dictatorial Joe Biden regime, watching out our windows for the end of the world to come, which in a way makes us special, because no other generation before ours has actually gotten to see and experience the end of the world.
EXCEPT, the world is not ending, at all, it is still carrying on, which takes us back FOUR LONG AND TEDIOUS YEARS to September 8, 2019, and the conclusion of that CCM article referenced above, to wit:
So, stop listening to these people.
As we speak, California is planning to add climate change fear to the school curriculum.
We are raising a generation of kids who are living in fear, like the poor girl from Holland that says every day she wakes up afraid for her future, so much so that she had to sail to New York.
All of this is based on theory, and not empirical evidence, or as some call it, science.
end quotes
The “little girl” referred to there, of course, is little Greta Thunberg who stars in a video linked to in that article where little Greta, the driving force behind this CLIMATE CRISIS HYSTERIA that has swept all across America, reducing the minds of a majority of the American people to a sort of unthinking mush, due to an overload of fear, tells us, as follows:
“Our house is on fire.”
“I’m here to say, our house is on fire,”
“According to the IPPC, we are less than 12 years away from being able to undo our mistakes.”
end quotes
That was in 2019, people, that we only had 12 years left to live, and four of them are now gone, which leaves just eight years left before the earth becomes a raging fireball consuming all and everything and leaving mothing left but a charred wasteland, which takes us back to little Greta, to wit:
“On climate change, we have to acknowledge that we have failed!”
“Solving the CLIMATE CRISIS is the most complex challenge that homo sapiens have ever faced.”
end quotes
And there, people, is the basis of Joe Biden’s specious claim that we have a CLIMATE CRISIS – he heard it from little Greta Thunberg, who hasn’t the slightest idea as to what she is talking about, but is listened to and taken seriously regardless by the caitiff media, which thinks she is just the cutest thing ever, cuddly like a little kitten, and because the caitiff media takes her seriously, then so does Joe Biden, which takes us back to little Greta, to wit:
“The main solution is so simple that even a small child can understand it.”
“We have to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases!”
“And either we do that, or we don’t!’
end quotes
And for the record here, people, since we are going to be talking about burning hydrogen as Joe Biden’s solution to this problem, the combustion product of which is water vapor, according to NASA, water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, being responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat, and it just so happens that it is those greenhouse gases little Greta and Joe Biden want to stop the emissions of, that keep our planet livable, which takes us back to this hysterical raving from little Greta in 2019, to wit:.
“Either we avoid setting off that irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, or we don’t!”
end quote
Irreversible chain reaction?
My goodness, do tell, Greta!
And here is little Greta’s solution, to wit:
“We must change almost everything in our current society.”
end quote
Right, right, Greta, tell you what, we’ll get right on it for you, changing everything in our current society, just so you can feel good about yourself and all warm and squishy inside because you single-handedly saved the earth from people like us, which takes us back to for Greta, given she was on a roll that day with her scripted performance, to wit:
“Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope.”
“But I don’t want your hope.”
“I don’t want you to be hopeful!”
“I WANT YOU TO PANIC!”
“I want you to feel the fear I feel every day!”
end quotes
And on that command from this little girl with some serious psychological problems attributed to damn poor parenting linked to improper potty training, four years ago in 2019, as if Pavlovian dogs, the majority of the American people heard her command, and obeyed her, and went into the panic mode she demanded of them, so that they are now easily manipulated by Joe Biden, who is milking this crisis created by little Greta Thunberg with a looting of our treasury to the tune of $TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that Joe is now using to reward and enrichen some of the richest and most powerful corporations in America, as well as to buy this next presidential election!
Think I’m kidding, people?
Not a joke!
And for proof of that assertion, let us go to a Reuters article titled “Biden administration to announce $7 billion in hydrogen hub grants Friday – sources” by Jarrett Renshaw and Valerie Volcovici on October 10, 2023, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON, Oct 10 (Reuters) – The Biden administration is expected to announce on Friday the winners of $7 billion in federal grants to build out regional hydrogen hubs, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The announcement caps months of intense political jockeying among states from California to Pennsylvania for their share of the $7 billion in federal dollars to set the U.S. on a path to produce 50 million metric tons of clean hydrogen fuel by 2050.
The competitive process granted the White House unusual power to play kingmaker and reward allies in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that could play a major role in whether President Joe Biden is re-elected in 2024.
end quotes
And with all that stated, it’s time to pause for station identification, but don’t change that dial, for we will soon be right back.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-859258
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
This thread, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, in one of a series of articles in the Cape Charles Mirror going back to September 8, 2019, and a story titled “The Great Climate Hoax” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/the-gr ... mate-hoax/ , where we were informed, as follows:
CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.
end quotes
Yes, people, the end of the world!
But that was September 8, 2019, FOUR (4) years ago, now, and still we wait, sitting on the very edge of our seats, spurred on by CLIMATE CRISIS HYSTERIA stoked up by the dictatorial Joe Biden regime, watching out our windows for the end of the world to come, which in a way makes us special, because no other generation before ours has actually gotten to see and experience the end of the world.
EXCEPT, the world is not ending, at all, it is still carrying on, which takes us back FOUR LONG AND TEDIOUS YEARS to September 8, 2019, and the conclusion of that CCM article referenced above, to wit:
So, stop listening to these people.
As we speak, California is planning to add climate change fear to the school curriculum.
We are raising a generation of kids who are living in fear, like the poor girl from Holland that says every day she wakes up afraid for her future, so much so that she had to sail to New York.
All of this is based on theory, and not empirical evidence, or as some call it, science.
end quotes
The “little girl” referred to there, of course, is little Greta Thunberg who stars in a video linked to in that article where little Greta, the driving force behind this CLIMATE CRISIS HYSTERIA that has swept all across America, reducing the minds of a majority of the American people to a sort of unthinking mush, due to an overload of fear, tells us, as follows:
“Our house is on fire.”
“I’m here to say, our house is on fire,”
“According to the IPPC, we are less than 12 years away from being able to undo our mistakes.”
end quotes
That was in 2019, people, that we only had 12 years left to live, and four of them are now gone, which leaves just eight years left before the earth becomes a raging fireball consuming all and everything and leaving mothing left but a charred wasteland, which takes us back to little Greta, to wit:
“On climate change, we have to acknowledge that we have failed!”
“Solving the CLIMATE CRISIS is the most complex challenge that homo sapiens have ever faced.”
end quotes
And there, people, is the basis of Joe Biden’s specious claim that we have a CLIMATE CRISIS – he heard it from little Greta Thunberg, who hasn’t the slightest idea as to what she is talking about, but is listened to and taken seriously regardless by the caitiff media, which thinks she is just the cutest thing ever, cuddly like a little kitten, and because the caitiff media takes her seriously, then so does Joe Biden, which takes us back to little Greta, to wit:
“The main solution is so simple that even a small child can understand it.”
“We have to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases!”
“And either we do that, or we don’t!’
end quotes
And for the record here, people, since we are going to be talking about burning hydrogen as Joe Biden’s solution to this problem, the combustion product of which is water vapor, according to NASA, water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, being responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat, and it just so happens that it is those greenhouse gases little Greta and Joe Biden want to stop the emissions of, that keep our planet livable, which takes us back to this hysterical raving from little Greta in 2019, to wit:.
“Either we avoid setting off that irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, or we don’t!”
end quote
Irreversible chain reaction?
My goodness, do tell, Greta!
And here is little Greta’s solution, to wit:
“We must change almost everything in our current society.”
end quote
Right, right, Greta, tell you what, we’ll get right on it for you, changing everything in our current society, just so you can feel good about yourself and all warm and squishy inside because you single-handedly saved the earth from people like us, which takes us back to for Greta, given she was on a roll that day with her scripted performance, to wit:
“Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope.”
“But I don’t want your hope.”
“I don’t want you to be hopeful!”
“I WANT YOU TO PANIC!”
“I want you to feel the fear I feel every day!”
end quotes
And on that command from this little girl with some serious psychological problems attributed to damn poor parenting linked to improper potty training, four years ago in 2019, as if Pavlovian dogs, the majority of the American people heard her command, and obeyed her, and went into the panic mode she demanded of them, so that they are now easily manipulated by Joe Biden, who is milking this crisis created by little Greta Thunberg with a looting of our treasury to the tune of $TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that Joe is now using to reward and enrichen some of the richest and most powerful corporations in America, as well as to buy this next presidential election!
Think I’m kidding, people?
Not a joke!
And for proof of that assertion, let us go to a Reuters article titled “Biden administration to announce $7 billion in hydrogen hub grants Friday – sources” by Jarrett Renshaw and Valerie Volcovici on October 10, 2023, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON, Oct 10 (Reuters) – The Biden administration is expected to announce on Friday the winners of $7 billion in federal grants to build out regional hydrogen hubs, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The announcement caps months of intense political jockeying among states from California to Pennsylvania for their share of the $7 billion in federal dollars to set the U.S. on a path to produce 50 million metric tons of clean hydrogen fuel by 2050.
The competitive process granted the White House unusual power to play kingmaker and reward allies in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that could play a major role in whether President Joe Biden is re-elected in 2024.
end quotes
And with all that stated, it’s time to pause for station identification, but don’t change that dial, for we will soon be right back.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-859258
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
The New York Post
"The wheels are coming off New York’s insane alternate-energy plans"
Opinion by Post Editorial Board
16 OCTOBER 2023
New York state’s insane renewable-energy plan is starting to implode; the sooner Gov. Kathy Hochul and other leaders admit the truth, the better.
On Thursday, the state Public Service Commission nixed a request for vastly greater subsidies — about $12 billion worth — for 90 alternate-power projects that are supposed to provide a quarter of the state’s electricity by 2020.
That would have doubled public support, most likely meaning huge increases for ratepayers in a state where power already costs far above the national average and rates are even now rising to help pay for this “transformation.”
The companies involved say they’re facing far higher costs, thanks to inflation, supply-chain issues and other developments since they inked the original deals.
Many, likely most, will now look to exit.
Hochul, meanwhile, released a new “10-Point Action Plan” that rhetorically doubles down on the state’s commitment its goals but doesn’t hold a hint of how to pay for it.
The state’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requires cutting fossil-fuel emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050.
Solar and (mostly offshore) wind plants are supposed to replace that electricity.
Oh, and cover the natural growth in demand for power.
Plus, New York wants everyone switching to electric cars, electric heat and electric cooking, so these green dreams require even more growth in electricity generation.
Again, the PSC’s (wise) ruling means the wheels are coming off the entire alternative-energy scheme.
Fishermen, activists protest offshore wind farms near Montauk, cite recent whale deaths
Nor is that the only blow.
For example, part of the supply-chain issue is the utter lack of ships that can actually build the vast fields of offshore wind towers that New York’s leaders want.
The only vessels with that capability are foreign-flagged, and so prohibited under the federal Jones Act, a sacred cow for the American labor movement.
Then, too, plans for a battery factory in the Hudson Valley are on the brink of collapse after its CEO resigned, its stock cratered and its workers got laid off.
Vancouver-based Zinc8 Energy Solutions had won $68 million in state tax credits for a Kingston plant to manufacture long-duration energy storage systems.
Its implosion means the imagined renewables-heavy electric grid would lack crucial help in maintaining service when the sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing.
Meanwhile, the folks in charge of overseeing the state electric grid have warned that this “transition” risks leaving New York City facing blackouts as soon as 2025.
By the way, statewide conversion to electric heat would mean peak power demand will come in the coldest months, not the hottest: So the blackouts won’t leave people sweating uncomfortably but instead freezing in the dead of winter.
The entire US and Western drive to end carbon emissions is a ruinous wild-goose chase.
New York’s rush to lead the way, begun simply to boost then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s presidential hopes, only guarantees that Empire Staters will suffer the worst ruin before reality comes crashing down.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 5279&ei=23
"The wheels are coming off New York’s insane alternate-energy plans"
Opinion by Post Editorial Board
16 OCTOBER 2023
New York state’s insane renewable-energy plan is starting to implode; the sooner Gov. Kathy Hochul and other leaders admit the truth, the better.
On Thursday, the state Public Service Commission nixed a request for vastly greater subsidies — about $12 billion worth — for 90 alternate-power projects that are supposed to provide a quarter of the state’s electricity by 2020.
That would have doubled public support, most likely meaning huge increases for ratepayers in a state where power already costs far above the national average and rates are even now rising to help pay for this “transformation.”
The companies involved say they’re facing far higher costs, thanks to inflation, supply-chain issues and other developments since they inked the original deals.
Many, likely most, will now look to exit.
Hochul, meanwhile, released a new “10-Point Action Plan” that rhetorically doubles down on the state’s commitment its goals but doesn’t hold a hint of how to pay for it.
The state’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requires cutting fossil-fuel emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050.
Solar and (mostly offshore) wind plants are supposed to replace that electricity.
Oh, and cover the natural growth in demand for power.
Plus, New York wants everyone switching to electric cars, electric heat and electric cooking, so these green dreams require even more growth in electricity generation.
Again, the PSC’s (wise) ruling means the wheels are coming off the entire alternative-energy scheme.
Fishermen, activists protest offshore wind farms near Montauk, cite recent whale deaths
Nor is that the only blow.
For example, part of the supply-chain issue is the utter lack of ships that can actually build the vast fields of offshore wind towers that New York’s leaders want.
The only vessels with that capability are foreign-flagged, and so prohibited under the federal Jones Act, a sacred cow for the American labor movement.
Then, too, plans for a battery factory in the Hudson Valley are on the brink of collapse after its CEO resigned, its stock cratered and its workers got laid off.
Vancouver-based Zinc8 Energy Solutions had won $68 million in state tax credits for a Kingston plant to manufacture long-duration energy storage systems.
Its implosion means the imagined renewables-heavy electric grid would lack crucial help in maintaining service when the sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing.
Meanwhile, the folks in charge of overseeing the state electric grid have warned that this “transition” risks leaving New York City facing blackouts as soon as 2025.
By the way, statewide conversion to electric heat would mean peak power demand will come in the coldest months, not the hottest: So the blackouts won’t leave people sweating uncomfortably but instead freezing in the dead of winter.
The entire US and Western drive to end carbon emissions is a ruinous wild-goose chase.
New York’s rush to lead the way, begun simply to boost then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s presidential hopes, only guarantees that Empire Staters will suffer the worst ruin before reality comes crashing down.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 5279&ei=23
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
The Hill
"Biden’s kamikaze climate plan for the US economy"
Opinion by Steve Milloy, Opinion Contributor
16 OCTOBER 2023
This year’s United Nations Climate Week was more revelatory than the usual.
Beyond its prosaic handwringing about supposed planetary doom, four distinct disclosures related to China should cause concern.
First, China finally dropped its “net zero” pose.
The world’s largest emitter had promised to reach net zero by 2060.
But its climate envoy now says that “completely phasing out fossil fuel is unrealistic” because “fossil fuels are essential to maintain grid stability and energy security given the sometimes unreliable nature of renewables.”
This makes sense.
China’s primary goal is to become the lone global superpower by 2049.
China is smart enough to realize that goal cannot be accomplished if it cripples itself, weakening its electricity grid with unreliable wind and solar power while simultaneously burdening it with massive numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps.
The Biden administration, on the other hand, is determined to cripple the U.S.
It is engaged in simultaneous EPA rulemakings to zero out coal and gas plants, and to mandate the adoption of electric vehicles, even if the grid will not be able to sustain so many of them.
The Biden administration is also working on making gas stoves disappear, while Democrat-run states such as California and New York are also working on making gas furnaces and water heaters disappear.
Meanwhile, we learned from the Biden Department of Energy that Chinese coal plant emissions might not be so “disastrous” after all.
The Argonne National Laboratory, which had its origins in the Manhattan Project and played a key role in the development of the Navy’s nuclear fleet and commercial nuclear power, is now developing computer models that excuse Chinese coal plant emissions.
Argonne claims that if electric vehicles in China are driven more than 178,000 miles, they will begin to offset emissions from coal power plants.
But China has as much coal power now just in some phase of planning or construction as what the U.S. now has in its entirety.
Reuters called this a “weird climate logic.”
That puts it mildly.
We also learned from the UN event that the Biden administration has given up hope of trying to be independent of China with respect to electric vehicles and solar panels.
A top Biden administration official told Bloomberg News that we “won’t be able to cut China out of the critical minerals supply chain”, even as Washington seeks to diversify its sources of the ingredients that go into everything from electric vehicle” for electric vehicle batteries and solar panels.
“We are perfectly happy to work with them on this and right now we purchase many of the minerals from Chinese companies,” said Jose Fernandez, the U.S. undersecretary for economic growth and the environment.
What responsible government shrugs its shoulders at being economically reliant on its geopolitical rival?
And how pathetic is it that, even if somehow war does not disrupt U.S. access to Chinese “clean energy” materials, they will all be mined and shipped with energy derived from dirty Chinese coal?
In spite of all the above, White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi told the New York Times editorial board, “We’re retaking control of our energy security and our energy future.”
Biden climate envoy John Kerry admitted in 2021 that even if the U.S. and China went to zero emissions tomorrow, “we’d still have a [climate problem].”
The only difference between then and now is that they have stopped admitting the obvious.
So even if you believe that emissions are going to end the world in a few years, the Chinese clearly don’t, and they don’t plan to do anything about it.
So what’s the point?
And why is Biden so intent on crashing our economy and national security in the name of climate shibboleths?
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... bc19&ei=28
"Biden’s kamikaze climate plan for the US economy"
Opinion by Steve Milloy, Opinion Contributor
16 OCTOBER 2023
This year’s United Nations Climate Week was more revelatory than the usual.
Beyond its prosaic handwringing about supposed planetary doom, four distinct disclosures related to China should cause concern.
First, China finally dropped its “net zero” pose.
The world’s largest emitter had promised to reach net zero by 2060.
But its climate envoy now says that “completely phasing out fossil fuel is unrealistic” because “fossil fuels are essential to maintain grid stability and energy security given the sometimes unreliable nature of renewables.”
This makes sense.
China’s primary goal is to become the lone global superpower by 2049.
China is smart enough to realize that goal cannot be accomplished if it cripples itself, weakening its electricity grid with unreliable wind and solar power while simultaneously burdening it with massive numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps.
The Biden administration, on the other hand, is determined to cripple the U.S.
It is engaged in simultaneous EPA rulemakings to zero out coal and gas plants, and to mandate the adoption of electric vehicles, even if the grid will not be able to sustain so many of them.
The Biden administration is also working on making gas stoves disappear, while Democrat-run states such as California and New York are also working on making gas furnaces and water heaters disappear.
Meanwhile, we learned from the Biden Department of Energy that Chinese coal plant emissions might not be so “disastrous” after all.
The Argonne National Laboratory, which had its origins in the Manhattan Project and played a key role in the development of the Navy’s nuclear fleet and commercial nuclear power, is now developing computer models that excuse Chinese coal plant emissions.
Argonne claims that if electric vehicles in China are driven more than 178,000 miles, they will begin to offset emissions from coal power plants.
But China has as much coal power now just in some phase of planning or construction as what the U.S. now has in its entirety.
Reuters called this a “weird climate logic.”
That puts it mildly.
We also learned from the UN event that the Biden administration has given up hope of trying to be independent of China with respect to electric vehicles and solar panels.
A top Biden administration official told Bloomberg News that we “won’t be able to cut China out of the critical minerals supply chain”, even as Washington seeks to diversify its sources of the ingredients that go into everything from electric vehicle” for electric vehicle batteries and solar panels.
“We are perfectly happy to work with them on this and right now we purchase many of the minerals from Chinese companies,” said Jose Fernandez, the U.S. undersecretary for economic growth and the environment.
What responsible government shrugs its shoulders at being economically reliant on its geopolitical rival?
And how pathetic is it that, even if somehow war does not disrupt U.S. access to Chinese “clean energy” materials, they will all be mined and shipped with energy derived from dirty Chinese coal?
In spite of all the above, White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi told the New York Times editorial board, “We’re retaking control of our energy security and our energy future.”
Biden climate envoy John Kerry admitted in 2021 that even if the U.S. and China went to zero emissions tomorrow, “we’d still have a [climate problem].”
The only difference between then and now is that they have stopped admitting the obvious.
So even if you believe that emissions are going to end the world in a few years, the Chinese clearly don’t, and they don’t plan to do anything about it.
So what’s the point?
And why is Biden so intent on crashing our economy and national security in the name of climate shibboleths?
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... bc19&ei=28
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 16, 2023 AT 6:41 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
Going back four years to September 8, 2019, and the Cape Charles Mirror story titled “The Great Climate Hoax,” we are confronted with this set of relevant statements, to wit:
CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.
All of this is based on theory, and not empirical evidence, or as some call it, science.
end quotes
Empirical evidence, and this is important to understand, nor does it require anything more than a high school education to understand, is defined as “the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment,” with empirical evidence being a quintessential part of the scientific method of research.
Now with respect to Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM and its massive price tag which is to be paid for out of the pockets and on the backs of the common American citizen, where along with windmills and solar panels, to save America in his warped and twisted mind, Joe is going to be producing massive amounts of hydrogen to fuel American industry, again in Joe’s mind, what we already know, and have known for many, many years now from empirical evidence is that first of all, hydrogen is lightest of all gases and, as a consequence, its physical properties do not fully match the requirements of the energy market, for reasons we shall explore and document, using the empirical evidence that exists as our guide.
Secondly, we know, this again from empirical evidence, that production, packaging, storage, transfer and delivery of hydrogen, with those being all key components of an energy economy, are so energy consuming that to deliver one horsepower’s worth of energy, many more horsepower are required to produce that one horsepower’s worth, which makes it not at all an energy efficient process, which in turn will make it a costly process to maintain and a fuel to use.
Thirdly, we know (HINT: think Hindenburg Disaster – Real Footage (1937) | British Pathé, “OH, THE HUMANITY” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fURATK5Yt30 ) that hydrogen is a highly inflammable substance and explosive in nature that cannot be easily transported from one place to another.
And we also know, this from basic high school chemistry, that the combustion product of burning hydrogen to fuel our economy, as Joe Biden wants to do by producing 50 MILLION METRIC TONS of GREEN hydrogen fuel by 2050, is water, or H2O!
And we know from NASA that water vapor, NOT CO2, is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas as well as the most important greenhouse gas, being responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat, while we also know from the Encyclopædia Britannica that water vapor is the most potent of the greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, so that water vapor is blocking more energy than carbon dioxide today.
We know from basic high school chemistry that to combust hydrogen as a fuel, each pair of hydrogen atoms (or each molecule of H2) will combine with one atom of Oxygen (or one half molecule of O2) to form one molecule of H2O, or water, so that on a weight basis, each pound of hydrogen to be combusted requires 7.94 pounds of Oxygen for complete combustion, which will result in the production of 8.94 pounds of water coming out the tailpipe or smokestack and into the environment in vapor form, which will add to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere to make global warming worse, not better.
And then we simply drop back in time to September 21, 2023, where we have the “FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Combat the Climate Crisis,” where Joe and Karmela are telling us that they are taking new steps will catalyze action across the federal government to account for climate change impacts in budgeting, procurement, and other agency decisions, and save hardworking families money.
That bit about saving hardworking families money, of course, is pure Biden BULL****, because he is making things more expensive, like the $190 I just had to pay for the battery I just bought for my 2012 Toyota pick-up.
But for the purposes of this discussion, the key words in that title are these, to wit: "New Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Combat the Climate Crisis!”
Which brings us to the idiocy and hypocrisy here because this new action by Joe and Karmela, this plan to burn hydrogen as a fuel to make steel and aluminum and concrete, not to mention powering vehicles, is going to add to the greenhouse gases, not reduce them, which will contribute to Joe’s climate crisis, not combat it.
And once again, it is time for station identification, and when we come back it will be with this thought in mind, as Joe tells us his plan will save hardworking families money, to wit:
The production of hydrogen is very energy intensive, even with mature technology, and hydrogen-based steel is about twice as expensive as coal-based steel as a result.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-859516
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
Going back four years to September 8, 2019, and the Cape Charles Mirror story titled “The Great Climate Hoax,” we are confronted with this set of relevant statements, to wit:
CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.
All of this is based on theory, and not empirical evidence, or as some call it, science.
end quotes
Empirical evidence, and this is important to understand, nor does it require anything more than a high school education to understand, is defined as “the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment,” with empirical evidence being a quintessential part of the scientific method of research.
Now with respect to Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM and its massive price tag which is to be paid for out of the pockets and on the backs of the common American citizen, where along with windmills and solar panels, to save America in his warped and twisted mind, Joe is going to be producing massive amounts of hydrogen to fuel American industry, again in Joe’s mind, what we already know, and have known for many, many years now from empirical evidence is that first of all, hydrogen is lightest of all gases and, as a consequence, its physical properties do not fully match the requirements of the energy market, for reasons we shall explore and document, using the empirical evidence that exists as our guide.
Secondly, we know, this again from empirical evidence, that production, packaging, storage, transfer and delivery of hydrogen, with those being all key components of an energy economy, are so energy consuming that to deliver one horsepower’s worth of energy, many more horsepower are required to produce that one horsepower’s worth, which makes it not at all an energy efficient process, which in turn will make it a costly process to maintain and a fuel to use.
Thirdly, we know (HINT: think Hindenburg Disaster – Real Footage (1937) | British Pathé, “OH, THE HUMANITY” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fURATK5Yt30 ) that hydrogen is a highly inflammable substance and explosive in nature that cannot be easily transported from one place to another.
And we also know, this from basic high school chemistry, that the combustion product of burning hydrogen to fuel our economy, as Joe Biden wants to do by producing 50 MILLION METRIC TONS of GREEN hydrogen fuel by 2050, is water, or H2O!
And we know from NASA that water vapor, NOT CO2, is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas as well as the most important greenhouse gas, being responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat, while we also know from the Encyclopædia Britannica that water vapor is the most potent of the greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, so that water vapor is blocking more energy than carbon dioxide today.
We know from basic high school chemistry that to combust hydrogen as a fuel, each pair of hydrogen atoms (or each molecule of H2) will combine with one atom of Oxygen (or one half molecule of O2) to form one molecule of H2O, or water, so that on a weight basis, each pound of hydrogen to be combusted requires 7.94 pounds of Oxygen for complete combustion, which will result in the production of 8.94 pounds of water coming out the tailpipe or smokestack and into the environment in vapor form, which will add to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere to make global warming worse, not better.
And then we simply drop back in time to September 21, 2023, where we have the “FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Combat the Climate Crisis,” where Joe and Karmela are telling us that they are taking new steps will catalyze action across the federal government to account for climate change impacts in budgeting, procurement, and other agency decisions, and save hardworking families money.
That bit about saving hardworking families money, of course, is pure Biden BULL****, because he is making things more expensive, like the $190 I just had to pay for the battery I just bought for my 2012 Toyota pick-up.
But for the purposes of this discussion, the key words in that title are these, to wit: "New Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Combat the Climate Crisis!”
Which brings us to the idiocy and hypocrisy here because this new action by Joe and Karmela, this plan to burn hydrogen as a fuel to make steel and aluminum and concrete, not to mention powering vehicles, is going to add to the greenhouse gases, not reduce them, which will contribute to Joe’s climate crisis, not combat it.
And once again, it is time for station identification, and when we come back it will be with this thought in mind, as Joe tells us his plan will save hardworking families money, to wit:
The production of hydrogen is very energy intensive, even with mature technology, and hydrogen-based steel is about twice as expensive as coal-based steel as a result.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-859516
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
VOX
"Why Biden’s multibillion-dollar bet on hydrogen energy is such a big deal - Clean hydrogen can be a lot dirtier than it seems, especially when the fossil fuel industry gets involved."
By Rebecca Leber @rebleber rebecca.leber@vox.com
Oct 16, 2023
One of the biggest bets of the Biden administration is that clean hydrogen will help the United States reach its climate goals, revitalize domestic manufacturing, and bolster a shrinking fossil fuel workforce.
That’s a lot riding on an industry that barely exists today.
The term “clean hydrogen” can mean many things — some of which aren’t exactly clean.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and it’s a very promising energy source that could power sectors of the economy that electrification and renewables currently cannot.
But the pure hydrogen gas that works as fuel first needs to be produced, and that process can either be polluting or clean.
The US government is currently determining what counts as clean hydrogen, and the exact terms it agrees upon will have huge implications for what will effectively become an entirely new energy industry.
Meanwhile, building the infrastructure to produce it wholly from scratch will be tough to pull off.
That’s a problem a new system of so-called hydrogen hubs aims to fix.
President Joe Biden was at the Port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 13 to announce the creation of seven new hydrogen hubs around the country that will produce hydrogen fuel and begin to establish this new energy industry.
The Biden administration envisions these hubs to be sprawling clusters of pipelines and facilities across hundreds of miles, and the Department of Energy is spending $7 billion to build them.
The federal funding is just a start.
The Biden administration hopes these projects attract another $40 billion in private investment.
And generous government subsidies earmarked in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act are aimed at providing the private sector with the incentive to boost not only the production of hydrogen but also the demand for it.
“You get very few chances to set up the political alliances and funding of a new industry,” Craig Segall, vice president of policy at environmental policy group Evergreen, told Vox.
“You never get a crack at this."
"It’s as if we were at the beginning of coal or gas.”
Republican and Democratic politicians alike have dreamed for decades of using the most abundant element in the universe to someday power manufacturing, buildings, and even cars.
Hydrogen can be burned just like gasoline in an engine.
It can also be used to generate an electrical current.
When burned, it produces no carbon emissions and few air pollutants.
In a fuel cell, its main byproduct is water.
The problem is how to scale hydrogen without worsening climate pollution or cannibalizing existing clean power on the grid.
Virtually all of the hydrogen produced today comes from fossil fuels, and the industry that stands to benefit the most from the government’s massive subsidies is oil and gas.
“Some people have talked about it being the Swiss Army knife for decarbonization, where it could be used for almost any application,” said Dennis Wamsted, an energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
“But that doesn’t mean it’s the best tool; it doesn’t mean it would be the best or the cheapest, or the fastest, or the most reliable.”
So the Biden administration has an unusual opportunity to set the contours of how clean the hydrogen really becomes.
The newly announced hydrogen hubs are just the first step in a multiyear, multibillion-dollar road.
The government is essentially propping up a nascent industry, but with that massive support comes an opportunity to set the terms of an industry right.
And nobody’s exactly sure how it will all unfold.
“An entire ecosystem like this where you’re coming up with an all-new energy product,” said David Crane, the Department of Energy’s undersecretary for infrastructure, “it probably is unprecedented.”
Clean hydrogen, explained
There’s a way to produce hydrogen that worsens climate change, and there’s a way to do it cleanly.
It all depends on how the hydrogen is produced, and currently, almost all of it is made in a way that increases carbon emissions.
The way energy wonks talk about hydrogen is by color — which is funny since hydrogen gas itself is colorless.
Right now, nearly all of the existing hydrogen produced in the US today isn’t clean at all.
Ninety-five percent of it is “gray hydrogen,” produced using a method called steam methane reforming.
This process uses steam to heat methane derived from natural gas until it separates into a mixture of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen gas molecules.
This process is incredibly energy-intensive and gives the gray hydrogen production industry a carbon footprint the size of the United Kingdom and Indonesia combined.
Gray hydrogen is mostly used for industrial purposes like refining petroleum and metals as well as producing chemicals, fertilizer, and in rarer cases, fuel for vehicles.
Blue hydrogen is a tiny but growing subset of the industry.
Similar to gray hydrogen, blue hydrogen production uses steam methane reforming, which means that it also relies on natural gas.
But for blue hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and other monitoring attempts are introduced to limit leakage of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, which in theory minimizes its impact on climate change.
And carbon capture and storage technologies haven’t been proven at the scale for blue hydrogen to capture over the 90 percent of emissions needed to deliver climate benefits.
A third and very buzzworthy option is green hydrogen.
Producing green hydrogen employs a process called electrolysis, which uses an electrolyte, anode, and cathode to create a chemical reaction that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
No carbon capture is needed here, as no fossil fuels are involved in the process.
As the name implies, this is the cleanest way to produce hydrogen — if it relies entirely on renewables for the electricity to power the process.
It is currently very expensive and requires subsidies to compete with dirtier hydrogen options.
One other consideration with these types of hydrogen is the energy needed to produce them.
Both blue and green hydrogen could be used in similar ways and work as a clean energy solution, except a lot rides on how the hydrogen is made.
If energy derived from fossil fuels powers the production of any type of hydrogen, that could undermine carbon cuts.
For green hydrogen, specifically, electrolysis is a problem area because it’s so power-hungry.
So it’s essential that the electricity that powers the process comes from renewables, like solar, wind, and nuclear.
It also matters where the renewables come from.
One worry environmentalists have is that new hydrogen facilities will simply draw from existing solar and wind, eating up a lot of the clean electricity we already have.
“Making sure that this power is squeaky clean is absolutely necessary to make sure we’re not increasing emissions on the grid,” said Rachel Fakhry, NRDC’s emerging technologies director.
“Even a little bit of fossil fuels powering the system could drive very high emissions on the grid.”
There are even more colors of hydrogen, each of which refers to a different production method.
So while the phrase “clean hydrogen” is thrown around a lot, it’s not always clear what it’s referring to.
The hydrogen production question is a minefield that the Biden administration ultimately needs to navigate as it props up this burgeoning industry.
And in writing the rules for this hydrogen-powered future, the Energy and Treasury Departments are playing unusually important roles.
What’s in the hydrogen hubs announcement
Biden’s recent $7 billion announcement, it deserves to be said, is a major one.
It reveals the broad blueprint the Department of Energy intends to follow to build an entire energy industry almost from scratch.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gave the department $8 billion to develop both supply and demand for hydrogen — the other $1 billion will be used for supporting demand — and now we know some details about how it will spend the vast majority of that on the projects the DOE has prioritized.
These seven hydrogen hubs are spread across states in the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, the Pacific Northwest, California, the Midwest, and the mid-Atlantic.
Picked from a pool of 79 proposals submitted by private-public partnerships to the DOE, the winning proposals are sprawling plans for existing infrastructure as well as wish lists for new buildings and pipelines that ultimately have a long road of permitting and funding ahead.
The specific locations of the hubs are noteworthy not only because of how they will affect communities around them but also because of how the electric grid works in those areas.
The hubs aim to draw on a mix of renewables and natural gas infrastructure to develop blue and green hydrogen, but some of the largest projects planned could play out heavily in the fossil fuel industry’s favor.
According to the White House, two-thirds of the overall funding supports green hydrogen development, but at least two of the hubs will primarily rely on blue hydrogen — which, again, relies on natural gas.
The Houston-Gulf Coast hub, the largest of all of the hubs, plans to rely heavily on carbon capture for 2 million of the 3 million tons that come from natural gas — a task that will likely mean remodeling some of the region’s existing facilities with carbon capture equipment and pipelines.
Other hubs, like the ones in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic, draw also from existing nuclear power sources.
When fully operational, the White House says the seven hubs would reduce 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of 5.5 million gasoline-powered cars.
Not everyone is happy with the Biden administration’s approach to building out the hydrogen industry.
Fakhry was among the environmentalists expressing disappointment in the DOE’s process so far, calling the announcement a “mixed bag” with “some potentially promising elements.”
She does see the potential for hydrogen cutting emissions in industries that are difficult to switch to renewables, but the continued reliance on fossil fuels is a sticking point.
“I was frankly surprised at the level of dependence on gas-derived hydrogen and on gas-reliant power sources,” Fakhry said.
Again, the exact terms the government is setting for what counts as clean hydrogen is still unclear.
Will blue hydrogen facilities have to meet specific carbon-capture standards to be counted as clean?
How will natural gas leaks be minimized?
From the early details of the hydrogen hubs announcement, it appears the Department of Energy is following an all-of-the-above approach for hydrogen, relying on fossil fuels as well as renewables for future production.
This makes the next move from the Biden administration all the more critical: The Treasury Department is crafting standards that will ultimately set the course for what a hydrogen economy looks like.
These decisions will permanently shape an industry that is just starting to find its footing around the world, and may start trading internationally as early as the 2030s.
Why the next move from the Treasury Department matters even more for hydrogen
The fate of Biden’s big plans lies in the hands of an unexpected government agency: the Internal Revenue Services.
Soon, the IRS will find itself in the unusual situation of developing policy that will ultimately govern how the hydrogen energy industry operates.
It could, in turn, determine how much pollution this industry produces.
Sometime before the end of the year, the Internal Revenue Service is supposed to release guidance for a hydrogen production tax credit, called 45V.
These are generous tax credits meant to attract more investors to hydrogen.
The Inflation Reduction Act only vaguely defines the tax credits as applying to “clean hydrogen,” leaving it to the IRS to decide how to set the terms for what can be eligible for potentially $100 billion over the lifetime of the credits.
So the Biden administration is now in the process of defining how broad or narrow the tax credits will be for defining what counts as clean hydrogen amid all its caveats.
If the standards are too stringent, hydrogen may never get off the ground.
But if they’re too lax, there’s a risk the industry could become another carbon bomb — or even just an extension of the fossil fuel industry.
Clean energy industry leaders and environmentalists have thoughts on this.
One of the key proposals they’re making is a strict definition based on three pillars.
The core pillar is known as additionality, which would require hydrogen producers to add new renewables to the grid instead of diverting existing nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar.
Tapping new renewables avoids a problem environmentalists are especially worried about: that diverting existing electrons on the grid to produce hydrogen diverts from other climate goals to clean up pollution from buildings and transportation.
The second and third pillars are called deliverability and hourly matching.
These hold producers to similarly strict measures so the hydrogen industry isn’t taking away from clean energy already out there.
They require producers to source clean energy near where it’s consumed and match that energy hourly so they can’t run on credits for, say, solar when the sun is down.
These ideas are divisive.
You may have seen the ads coming from trade groups supported by ExxonMobil and utilities fighting back against additionality.
And Jacob Susman, CEO of hydrogen company Ambient Fuels, also argues for annual matching instead of hourly, saying it is a less stringent standard that allows the industry to use renewable energy credits.
“We need to be flexible in approaches early on so that we can get the cost down,” Susman told Vox.
“It would be very reasonable in a few year’s time to start talking about tightening the way it’s defined.”
The stakes here are incredibly high.
The way the hydrogen industry takes shape will determine whether it ensures greenhouse gasses actually fall as the White House hopes.
And taxpayers are footing the bill for potentially over $100 billion in incentives that could boost the fossil fuel industry if not done right.
And production is hardly the only challenge ahead.
Most of these policies just tackle the supply side of hydrogen, not addressing who and how it will be used to lower emissions.
The $1 billion the DOE has reserved to build up demand will go toward projects that slash emissions in tricky sectors like manufacturing cement and aviation fuels.
It also is likely to be used in the power sector, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules for cleaning up climate pollution assume gas plants could use a blend of hydrogen to meet stricter emissions standards.
The Biden administration ultimately considers hydrogen key to reducing 25 percent of global climate emissions by 2050.
That is, in part, because there are simply parts of the economy that can’t be cleaned up by relying on renewables and electrification alone.
We’re not going to see the biggest gains with hydrogen-powered SUVs but rather hydrogen-powered container ships and planes.
“Heavy transportation and heavy industry are the toughest nuts to crack, said Crane from the DOE.
“And hydrogen is the solution to that.”
Rebecca Leber is a senior reporter covering climate change for Vox. She was previously an environmental reporter at Mother Jones, Grist, and the New Republic. Rebecca also serves on the board of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
https://www.vox.com/climate/23900109/hy ... hubs-biden
"Why Biden’s multibillion-dollar bet on hydrogen energy is such a big deal - Clean hydrogen can be a lot dirtier than it seems, especially when the fossil fuel industry gets involved."
By Rebecca Leber @rebleber rebecca.leber@vox.com
Oct 16, 2023
One of the biggest bets of the Biden administration is that clean hydrogen will help the United States reach its climate goals, revitalize domestic manufacturing, and bolster a shrinking fossil fuel workforce.
That’s a lot riding on an industry that barely exists today.
The term “clean hydrogen” can mean many things — some of which aren’t exactly clean.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and it’s a very promising energy source that could power sectors of the economy that electrification and renewables currently cannot.
But the pure hydrogen gas that works as fuel first needs to be produced, and that process can either be polluting or clean.
The US government is currently determining what counts as clean hydrogen, and the exact terms it agrees upon will have huge implications for what will effectively become an entirely new energy industry.
Meanwhile, building the infrastructure to produce it wholly from scratch will be tough to pull off.
That’s a problem a new system of so-called hydrogen hubs aims to fix.
President Joe Biden was at the Port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 13 to announce the creation of seven new hydrogen hubs around the country that will produce hydrogen fuel and begin to establish this new energy industry.
The Biden administration envisions these hubs to be sprawling clusters of pipelines and facilities across hundreds of miles, and the Department of Energy is spending $7 billion to build them.
The federal funding is just a start.
The Biden administration hopes these projects attract another $40 billion in private investment.
And generous government subsidies earmarked in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act are aimed at providing the private sector with the incentive to boost not only the production of hydrogen but also the demand for it.
“You get very few chances to set up the political alliances and funding of a new industry,” Craig Segall, vice president of policy at environmental policy group Evergreen, told Vox.
“You never get a crack at this."
"It’s as if we were at the beginning of coal or gas.”
Republican and Democratic politicians alike have dreamed for decades of using the most abundant element in the universe to someday power manufacturing, buildings, and even cars.
Hydrogen can be burned just like gasoline in an engine.
It can also be used to generate an electrical current.
When burned, it produces no carbon emissions and few air pollutants.
In a fuel cell, its main byproduct is water.
The problem is how to scale hydrogen without worsening climate pollution or cannibalizing existing clean power on the grid.
Virtually all of the hydrogen produced today comes from fossil fuels, and the industry that stands to benefit the most from the government’s massive subsidies is oil and gas.
“Some people have talked about it being the Swiss Army knife for decarbonization, where it could be used for almost any application,” said Dennis Wamsted, an energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
“But that doesn’t mean it’s the best tool; it doesn’t mean it would be the best or the cheapest, or the fastest, or the most reliable.”
So the Biden administration has an unusual opportunity to set the contours of how clean the hydrogen really becomes.
The newly announced hydrogen hubs are just the first step in a multiyear, multibillion-dollar road.
The government is essentially propping up a nascent industry, but with that massive support comes an opportunity to set the terms of an industry right.
And nobody’s exactly sure how it will all unfold.
“An entire ecosystem like this where you’re coming up with an all-new energy product,” said David Crane, the Department of Energy’s undersecretary for infrastructure, “it probably is unprecedented.”
Clean hydrogen, explained
There’s a way to produce hydrogen that worsens climate change, and there’s a way to do it cleanly.
It all depends on how the hydrogen is produced, and currently, almost all of it is made in a way that increases carbon emissions.
The way energy wonks talk about hydrogen is by color — which is funny since hydrogen gas itself is colorless.
Right now, nearly all of the existing hydrogen produced in the US today isn’t clean at all.
Ninety-five percent of it is “gray hydrogen,” produced using a method called steam methane reforming.
This process uses steam to heat methane derived from natural gas until it separates into a mixture of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen gas molecules.
This process is incredibly energy-intensive and gives the gray hydrogen production industry a carbon footprint the size of the United Kingdom and Indonesia combined.
Gray hydrogen is mostly used for industrial purposes like refining petroleum and metals as well as producing chemicals, fertilizer, and in rarer cases, fuel for vehicles.
Blue hydrogen is a tiny but growing subset of the industry.
Similar to gray hydrogen, blue hydrogen production uses steam methane reforming, which means that it also relies on natural gas.
But for blue hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and other monitoring attempts are introduced to limit leakage of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, which in theory minimizes its impact on climate change.
And carbon capture and storage technologies haven’t been proven at the scale for blue hydrogen to capture over the 90 percent of emissions needed to deliver climate benefits.
A third and very buzzworthy option is green hydrogen.
Producing green hydrogen employs a process called electrolysis, which uses an electrolyte, anode, and cathode to create a chemical reaction that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
No carbon capture is needed here, as no fossil fuels are involved in the process.
As the name implies, this is the cleanest way to produce hydrogen — if it relies entirely on renewables for the electricity to power the process.
It is currently very expensive and requires subsidies to compete with dirtier hydrogen options.
One other consideration with these types of hydrogen is the energy needed to produce them.
Both blue and green hydrogen could be used in similar ways and work as a clean energy solution, except a lot rides on how the hydrogen is made.
If energy derived from fossil fuels powers the production of any type of hydrogen, that could undermine carbon cuts.
For green hydrogen, specifically, electrolysis is a problem area because it’s so power-hungry.
So it’s essential that the electricity that powers the process comes from renewables, like solar, wind, and nuclear.
It also matters where the renewables come from.
One worry environmentalists have is that new hydrogen facilities will simply draw from existing solar and wind, eating up a lot of the clean electricity we already have.
“Making sure that this power is squeaky clean is absolutely necessary to make sure we’re not increasing emissions on the grid,” said Rachel Fakhry, NRDC’s emerging technologies director.
“Even a little bit of fossil fuels powering the system could drive very high emissions on the grid.”
There are even more colors of hydrogen, each of which refers to a different production method.
So while the phrase “clean hydrogen” is thrown around a lot, it’s not always clear what it’s referring to.
The hydrogen production question is a minefield that the Biden administration ultimately needs to navigate as it props up this burgeoning industry.
And in writing the rules for this hydrogen-powered future, the Energy and Treasury Departments are playing unusually important roles.
What’s in the hydrogen hubs announcement
Biden’s recent $7 billion announcement, it deserves to be said, is a major one.
It reveals the broad blueprint the Department of Energy intends to follow to build an entire energy industry almost from scratch.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gave the department $8 billion to develop both supply and demand for hydrogen — the other $1 billion will be used for supporting demand — and now we know some details about how it will spend the vast majority of that on the projects the DOE has prioritized.
These seven hydrogen hubs are spread across states in the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, the Pacific Northwest, California, the Midwest, and the mid-Atlantic.
Picked from a pool of 79 proposals submitted by private-public partnerships to the DOE, the winning proposals are sprawling plans for existing infrastructure as well as wish lists for new buildings and pipelines that ultimately have a long road of permitting and funding ahead.
The specific locations of the hubs are noteworthy not only because of how they will affect communities around them but also because of how the electric grid works in those areas.
The hubs aim to draw on a mix of renewables and natural gas infrastructure to develop blue and green hydrogen, but some of the largest projects planned could play out heavily in the fossil fuel industry’s favor.
According to the White House, two-thirds of the overall funding supports green hydrogen development, but at least two of the hubs will primarily rely on blue hydrogen — which, again, relies on natural gas.
The Houston-Gulf Coast hub, the largest of all of the hubs, plans to rely heavily on carbon capture for 2 million of the 3 million tons that come from natural gas — a task that will likely mean remodeling some of the region’s existing facilities with carbon capture equipment and pipelines.
Other hubs, like the ones in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic, draw also from existing nuclear power sources.
When fully operational, the White House says the seven hubs would reduce 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of 5.5 million gasoline-powered cars.
Not everyone is happy with the Biden administration’s approach to building out the hydrogen industry.
Fakhry was among the environmentalists expressing disappointment in the DOE’s process so far, calling the announcement a “mixed bag” with “some potentially promising elements.”
She does see the potential for hydrogen cutting emissions in industries that are difficult to switch to renewables, but the continued reliance on fossil fuels is a sticking point.
“I was frankly surprised at the level of dependence on gas-derived hydrogen and on gas-reliant power sources,” Fakhry said.
Again, the exact terms the government is setting for what counts as clean hydrogen is still unclear.
Will blue hydrogen facilities have to meet specific carbon-capture standards to be counted as clean?
How will natural gas leaks be minimized?
From the early details of the hydrogen hubs announcement, it appears the Department of Energy is following an all-of-the-above approach for hydrogen, relying on fossil fuels as well as renewables for future production.
This makes the next move from the Biden administration all the more critical: The Treasury Department is crafting standards that will ultimately set the course for what a hydrogen economy looks like.
These decisions will permanently shape an industry that is just starting to find its footing around the world, and may start trading internationally as early as the 2030s.
Why the next move from the Treasury Department matters even more for hydrogen
The fate of Biden’s big plans lies in the hands of an unexpected government agency: the Internal Revenue Services.
Soon, the IRS will find itself in the unusual situation of developing policy that will ultimately govern how the hydrogen energy industry operates.
It could, in turn, determine how much pollution this industry produces.
Sometime before the end of the year, the Internal Revenue Service is supposed to release guidance for a hydrogen production tax credit, called 45V.
These are generous tax credits meant to attract more investors to hydrogen.
The Inflation Reduction Act only vaguely defines the tax credits as applying to “clean hydrogen,” leaving it to the IRS to decide how to set the terms for what can be eligible for potentially $100 billion over the lifetime of the credits.
So the Biden administration is now in the process of defining how broad or narrow the tax credits will be for defining what counts as clean hydrogen amid all its caveats.
If the standards are too stringent, hydrogen may never get off the ground.
But if they’re too lax, there’s a risk the industry could become another carbon bomb — or even just an extension of the fossil fuel industry.
Clean energy industry leaders and environmentalists have thoughts on this.
One of the key proposals they’re making is a strict definition based on three pillars.
The core pillar is known as additionality, which would require hydrogen producers to add new renewables to the grid instead of diverting existing nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar.
Tapping new renewables avoids a problem environmentalists are especially worried about: that diverting existing electrons on the grid to produce hydrogen diverts from other climate goals to clean up pollution from buildings and transportation.
The second and third pillars are called deliverability and hourly matching.
These hold producers to similarly strict measures so the hydrogen industry isn’t taking away from clean energy already out there.
They require producers to source clean energy near where it’s consumed and match that energy hourly so they can’t run on credits for, say, solar when the sun is down.
These ideas are divisive.
You may have seen the ads coming from trade groups supported by ExxonMobil and utilities fighting back against additionality.
And Jacob Susman, CEO of hydrogen company Ambient Fuels, also argues for annual matching instead of hourly, saying it is a less stringent standard that allows the industry to use renewable energy credits.
“We need to be flexible in approaches early on so that we can get the cost down,” Susman told Vox.
“It would be very reasonable in a few year’s time to start talking about tightening the way it’s defined.”
The stakes here are incredibly high.
The way the hydrogen industry takes shape will determine whether it ensures greenhouse gasses actually fall as the White House hopes.
And taxpayers are footing the bill for potentially over $100 billion in incentives that could boost the fossil fuel industry if not done right.
And production is hardly the only challenge ahead.
Most of these policies just tackle the supply side of hydrogen, not addressing who and how it will be used to lower emissions.
The $1 billion the DOE has reserved to build up demand will go toward projects that slash emissions in tricky sectors like manufacturing cement and aviation fuels.
It also is likely to be used in the power sector, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules for cleaning up climate pollution assume gas plants could use a blend of hydrogen to meet stricter emissions standards.
The Biden administration ultimately considers hydrogen key to reducing 25 percent of global climate emissions by 2050.
That is, in part, because there are simply parts of the economy that can’t be cleaned up by relying on renewables and electrification alone.
We’re not going to see the biggest gains with hydrogen-powered SUVs but rather hydrogen-powered container ships and planes.
“Heavy transportation and heavy industry are the toughest nuts to crack, said Crane from the DOE.
“And hydrogen is the solution to that.”
Rebecca Leber is a senior reporter covering climate change for Vox. She was previously an environmental reporter at Mother Jones, Grist, and the New Republic. Rebecca also serves on the board of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
https://www.vox.com/climate/23900109/hy ... hubs-biden
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
OCTOBER 13, 2023
Biden-Harris Administration Announces Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs to Drive Clean Manufacturing and Jobs
Investing in American Infrastructure and Manufacturing is a key part of Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda
Today, President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are announcing seven regional clean hydrogen hubs that were selected to receive $7 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the domestic market for low-cost, clean hydrogen.
Advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the President’s vision of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation.
The announcement is part of the third installment of the Investing in America tour, during which President Biden will travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to announce the historic investment in manufacturing and jobs.
The seven selected regional clean hydrogen hubs will catalyze more than $40 billion in private investment and create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs – bringing the total public and private investment in hydrogen hubs to nearly $50 billion.
Roughly two-thirds of total project investment are associated with green (electrolysis based) production, within the hubs.
Several of the hubs were developed in close partnerships with unions, with three requiring project labor agreements (PLAs).
In addition to job creation and creating healthier air for communities, the selected hydrogen hubs are committed to robust Community Benefit Plans to ensure local priorities are at the forefront and all communities share in the benefits of the clean energy transition.
Collectively, the hubs aim to produce more than three million metric tons of clean hydrogen per year, thereby achieving nearly one third of the 2030 U.S. clean hydrogen production goal.
Together, the seven Hydrogen Hubs will eliminate 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from end uses each year — an amount roughly equivalent to combined annual emissions of over 5.5 million gasoline-powered cars.
The nearly $50 billion investment is one of the largest investments in clean manufacturing and jobs in history.
Clean hydrogen can reduce emissions in many sectors of the economy and is especially important for hard-to-decarbonize sectors and industrial processes, such as heavy-duty transportation and chemical, steel, and cement manufacturing.
Targeted investments in these areas can help reduce costs, make new breakthroughs, and create jobs for American engineers, manufacturing workers, construction workers, and others.
In the fewer than three years since taking office, President Biden’s leadership to reinvigorate the American economy and tackle the climate crisis has boosted U.S. manufacturing and deployment of cost-cutting clean energy technologies.
The President is delivering on his day one promise by positioning the United States to achieve our ambitious goals of onshoring production of clean technologies and creating good-paying union jobs.
Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs
Today, the President is in Philadelphia to announce seven regional clean hydrogen hubs nationwide.
The hubs selected for negotiation include:
Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub (Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub (MACH2); Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey)
The Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub will help unlock hydrogen-driven decarbonization in the Mid-Atlantic while repurposing historic oil infrastructure and using existing rights-of-way.
It plans to develop renewable hydrogen production facilities from renewable and nuclear electricity using both established and innovative electrolyzer technologies, where it can help reduce costs and drive further technology adoption.
As part of its labor and workforce commitments to the community, the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub plans to negotiate Project Labor Agreements for all projects and provide close to $14 million for regional Workforce Development Boards that will serve as partners for community college training and pre-apprenticeships.
This Hydrogen Hub anticipates creating 20,800 direct jobs — 14,400 in construction jobs and 6,400 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $750 million)
Appalachian Hydrogen Hub (Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub (ARCH2); West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania)
The Appalachian Hydrogen Hub will leverage the region’s ample access to low-cost natural gas to produce low-cost clean hydrogen and permanently and safely store the associated carbon emissions.
The strategic location of this Hydrogen Hub and the development of hydrogen pipelines, multiple hydrogen fueling stations, and permanent CO2 storage also have the potential to drive down the cost of hydrogen distribution and storage.
The Appalachian Hydrogen Hub is anticipated to bring quality job opportunities to workers in coal communities and create more than 21,000 direct jobs — including more than 18,000 in construction and more than 3,000 permanent jobs, helping ensure the Appalachian community benefits from the development and operation of the Hub. (Amount: up to $925 million)
California Hydrogen Hub (Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES); California)
The California Hydrogen Hub will leverage the Golden State’s leadership in clean energy technology to produce hydrogen exclusively from renewable energy and biomass.
It will provide a blueprint for decarbonizing public transportation, heavy duty trucking, and port operations — key emissions drivers in the state and sources of air pollution that are among the hardest to decarbonize.
This Hydrogen Hub has committed to requiring Project Labor Agreements for all projects connected to the hub, which will expand opportunities for disadvantaged communities and create an expected 220,000 direct jobs — 130,000 in construction jobs and 90,000 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1.2 billion)
Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub (HyVelocity Hydrogen Hub; Texas)
The Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub will be centered in the Houston region, the traditional energy capital of the United States.
It will help kickstart the clean hydrogen economy with its plans for large-scale hydrogen production through both natural gas with carbon capture and renewables-powered electrolysis, leveraging the Gulf Coast region’s abundant renewable energy and natural gas supply to drive down the cost of hydrogen — a crucial step to achieving market liftoff.
This Hydrogen Hub is expected to create approximately 45,000 direct jobs — 35,000 in construction jobs and 10,000 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1.2 billion)
Heartland Hydrogen Hub (Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota)
The Heartland Hydrogen Hub will leverage the region’s abundant energy resources to help decarbonize the agricultural sector’s production of fertilizer, decrease the regional cost of clean hydrogen, and advance the use of clean hydrogen in electric generation and for cold climate space heating.
It also plans to offer unique opportunities of equity ownership to tribal communities through an equity partnership and to local farmers and farmer co-ops through a private sector partnership that will allow local farmers to receive more competitive pricing for clean fertilizer.
The Heartland Hydrogen Hub anticipates creating upwards of 3,880 direct jobs–3,067 in construction jobs and 703 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $925 million)
Midwest Hydrogen Hub (Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen (MachH2); Illinois, Indiana, Michigan)
Located in a key U.S. industrial and transportation corridor, the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will enable decarbonization through strategic hydrogen uses including steel and glass production, power generation, refining, heavy-duty transportation, and sustainable aviation fuel.
This Hydrogen Hub plans to produce hydrogen by leveraging diverse and abundant energy sources, including renewable energy, natural gas, and low-cost nuclear energy.
The Midwest Hydrogen Hub anticipates creating 13,600 direct jobs — 12,100 in construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1 billion)
Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub (PNW H2; Washington, Oregon, Montana)
The Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub plans to leverage the region’s abundant renewable resources to produce clean hydrogen exclusively from renewable sources.
It’s anticipated widescale use of electrolyzers will play a key role in driving down electrolyzer costs, making the technology more accessible to other producers, and reducing the cost of hydrogen production.
The Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub has committed to negotiating Project Labor Agreements for all projects over $1 million and investing in joint labor-management/state-registered apprenticeship programs.
This Hydrogen Hub is expected to create more than 10,000 direct jobs — 8,050 in construction jobs and 350 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1 billion)
Investing in America, Investing in Clean Hydrogen
President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $65 billion in clean energy investments at the Department of Energy (DOE), including $8 billion for a Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Program to support the development of hubs for clean hydrogen production, delivery, and end-use.
Hydrogen can be produced from diverse domestic resources like solar energy, wind, nuclear energy, biomass, and natural gas with safe and responsible carbon capture, with the potential for near-zero greenhouse gas emissions from production.
Seven billion dollars of this program is going towards the development of the regional clean hydrogen hubs that will catalyze multistate hydrogen ecosystems that ultimately will expand and connect to form a national hydrogen economy.
Up to $1 billion of the remaining funding will be used for demand-side support for the hubs to drive innovative end-uses of clean hydrogen.
The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring safe hydrogen deployment and mitigating potential social, economic, technical, and environmental risks.
The hubs are covered under the Justice40 Initiative, which aims to ensure that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.
Hubs have also submitted detailed Community Benefits Plans, including how the project performers will transparently communicate, eliminate, mitigate, and minimize risks.
Through investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, DOE is pursuing a suite of technologies to produce clean energy across the board to invest in clean manufacturing, tackle the climate crisis and enhance energy security.
To further support DOE’s Hydrogen Shot to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1 per one kilogram in one decade, DOE has announced other resources to support clean hydrogen research and development.
DOE’s new Hydrogen Hub Matchmaker resource is helping clean hydrogen producers, end-users, and others find opportunities to develop networks of production, storage, and transportation infrastructure.
In addition to the hubs, the DOE has launched other clean hydrogen programs:
$1 billion for a Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program:
Electrolysis (using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen) allows for clean hydrogen production from carbon pollution-free power sources like wind, solar, and nuclear.
This program will improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these technologies by supporting the entire innovation chain — from research, development, and demonstration to commercialization and deployment.
$500 million for Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing and Recycling RD&D Activities:
DOE will also support American manufacturing of clean hydrogen equipment, including projects that improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness and support domestic supply chains for key components, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing Initiative.
DOE has also announced funding, as part of the Clean Hydrogen Technology Recycling Research, Development, and Demonstration Program, for innovative approaches to increase the reuse and recycling of clean hydrogen technologies.
In March 2023, DOE announced the first phase of funding for the Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program and the BIL’s manufacturing and recycling initiatives with a $750 million funding opportunity to dramatically reduce the cost of electrolyzers and other clean-hydrogen technologies.
Even before project selections have been announced, these initiatives are already demonstrating payoffs by building investor confidence: private sector commitments from the First Movers Coalition represent 1 million metric tons per year of clean hydrogen demand, and recently announced projects amount to 12 million metric tons per year of planned clean hydrogen production in the United States.
The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office has also completed investments in clean hydrogen facilities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... -and-jobs/
Biden-Harris Administration Announces Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs to Drive Clean Manufacturing and Jobs
Investing in American Infrastructure and Manufacturing is a key part of Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda
Today, President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are announcing seven regional clean hydrogen hubs that were selected to receive $7 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the domestic market for low-cost, clean hydrogen.
Advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the President’s vision of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation.
The announcement is part of the third installment of the Investing in America tour, during which President Biden will travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to announce the historic investment in manufacturing and jobs.
The seven selected regional clean hydrogen hubs will catalyze more than $40 billion in private investment and create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs – bringing the total public and private investment in hydrogen hubs to nearly $50 billion.
Roughly two-thirds of total project investment are associated with green (electrolysis based) production, within the hubs.
Several of the hubs were developed in close partnerships with unions, with three requiring project labor agreements (PLAs).
In addition to job creation and creating healthier air for communities, the selected hydrogen hubs are committed to robust Community Benefit Plans to ensure local priorities are at the forefront and all communities share in the benefits of the clean energy transition.
Collectively, the hubs aim to produce more than three million metric tons of clean hydrogen per year, thereby achieving nearly one third of the 2030 U.S. clean hydrogen production goal.
Together, the seven Hydrogen Hubs will eliminate 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from end uses each year — an amount roughly equivalent to combined annual emissions of over 5.5 million gasoline-powered cars.
The nearly $50 billion investment is one of the largest investments in clean manufacturing and jobs in history.
Clean hydrogen can reduce emissions in many sectors of the economy and is especially important for hard-to-decarbonize sectors and industrial processes, such as heavy-duty transportation and chemical, steel, and cement manufacturing.
Targeted investments in these areas can help reduce costs, make new breakthroughs, and create jobs for American engineers, manufacturing workers, construction workers, and others.
In the fewer than three years since taking office, President Biden’s leadership to reinvigorate the American economy and tackle the climate crisis has boosted U.S. manufacturing and deployment of cost-cutting clean energy technologies.
The President is delivering on his day one promise by positioning the United States to achieve our ambitious goals of onshoring production of clean technologies and creating good-paying union jobs.
Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs
Today, the President is in Philadelphia to announce seven regional clean hydrogen hubs nationwide.
The hubs selected for negotiation include:
Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub (Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub (MACH2); Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey)
The Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub will help unlock hydrogen-driven decarbonization in the Mid-Atlantic while repurposing historic oil infrastructure and using existing rights-of-way.
It plans to develop renewable hydrogen production facilities from renewable and nuclear electricity using both established and innovative electrolyzer technologies, where it can help reduce costs and drive further technology adoption.
As part of its labor and workforce commitments to the community, the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub plans to negotiate Project Labor Agreements for all projects and provide close to $14 million for regional Workforce Development Boards that will serve as partners for community college training and pre-apprenticeships.
This Hydrogen Hub anticipates creating 20,800 direct jobs — 14,400 in construction jobs and 6,400 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $750 million)
Appalachian Hydrogen Hub (Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub (ARCH2); West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania)
The Appalachian Hydrogen Hub will leverage the region’s ample access to low-cost natural gas to produce low-cost clean hydrogen and permanently and safely store the associated carbon emissions.
The strategic location of this Hydrogen Hub and the development of hydrogen pipelines, multiple hydrogen fueling stations, and permanent CO2 storage also have the potential to drive down the cost of hydrogen distribution and storage.
The Appalachian Hydrogen Hub is anticipated to bring quality job opportunities to workers in coal communities and create more than 21,000 direct jobs — including more than 18,000 in construction and more than 3,000 permanent jobs, helping ensure the Appalachian community benefits from the development and operation of the Hub. (Amount: up to $925 million)
California Hydrogen Hub (Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES); California)
The California Hydrogen Hub will leverage the Golden State’s leadership in clean energy technology to produce hydrogen exclusively from renewable energy and biomass.
It will provide a blueprint for decarbonizing public transportation, heavy duty trucking, and port operations — key emissions drivers in the state and sources of air pollution that are among the hardest to decarbonize.
This Hydrogen Hub has committed to requiring Project Labor Agreements for all projects connected to the hub, which will expand opportunities for disadvantaged communities and create an expected 220,000 direct jobs — 130,000 in construction jobs and 90,000 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1.2 billion)
Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub (HyVelocity Hydrogen Hub; Texas)
The Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub will be centered in the Houston region, the traditional energy capital of the United States.
It will help kickstart the clean hydrogen economy with its plans for large-scale hydrogen production through both natural gas with carbon capture and renewables-powered electrolysis, leveraging the Gulf Coast region’s abundant renewable energy and natural gas supply to drive down the cost of hydrogen — a crucial step to achieving market liftoff.
This Hydrogen Hub is expected to create approximately 45,000 direct jobs — 35,000 in construction jobs and 10,000 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1.2 billion)
Heartland Hydrogen Hub (Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota)
The Heartland Hydrogen Hub will leverage the region’s abundant energy resources to help decarbonize the agricultural sector’s production of fertilizer, decrease the regional cost of clean hydrogen, and advance the use of clean hydrogen in electric generation and for cold climate space heating.
It also plans to offer unique opportunities of equity ownership to tribal communities through an equity partnership and to local farmers and farmer co-ops through a private sector partnership that will allow local farmers to receive more competitive pricing for clean fertilizer.
The Heartland Hydrogen Hub anticipates creating upwards of 3,880 direct jobs–3,067 in construction jobs and 703 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $925 million)
Midwest Hydrogen Hub (Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen (MachH2); Illinois, Indiana, Michigan)
Located in a key U.S. industrial and transportation corridor, the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will enable decarbonization through strategic hydrogen uses including steel and glass production, power generation, refining, heavy-duty transportation, and sustainable aviation fuel.
This Hydrogen Hub plans to produce hydrogen by leveraging diverse and abundant energy sources, including renewable energy, natural gas, and low-cost nuclear energy.
The Midwest Hydrogen Hub anticipates creating 13,600 direct jobs — 12,100 in construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1 billion)
Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub (PNW H2; Washington, Oregon, Montana)
The Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub plans to leverage the region’s abundant renewable resources to produce clean hydrogen exclusively from renewable sources.
It’s anticipated widescale use of electrolyzers will play a key role in driving down electrolyzer costs, making the technology more accessible to other producers, and reducing the cost of hydrogen production.
The Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub has committed to negotiating Project Labor Agreements for all projects over $1 million and investing in joint labor-management/state-registered apprenticeship programs.
This Hydrogen Hub is expected to create more than 10,000 direct jobs — 8,050 in construction jobs and 350 permanent jobs. (Amount: up to $1 billion)
Investing in America, Investing in Clean Hydrogen
President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $65 billion in clean energy investments at the Department of Energy (DOE), including $8 billion for a Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Program to support the development of hubs for clean hydrogen production, delivery, and end-use.
Hydrogen can be produced from diverse domestic resources like solar energy, wind, nuclear energy, biomass, and natural gas with safe and responsible carbon capture, with the potential for near-zero greenhouse gas emissions from production.
Seven billion dollars of this program is going towards the development of the regional clean hydrogen hubs that will catalyze multistate hydrogen ecosystems that ultimately will expand and connect to form a national hydrogen economy.
Up to $1 billion of the remaining funding will be used for demand-side support for the hubs to drive innovative end-uses of clean hydrogen.
The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring safe hydrogen deployment and mitigating potential social, economic, technical, and environmental risks.
The hubs are covered under the Justice40 Initiative, which aims to ensure that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.
Hubs have also submitted detailed Community Benefits Plans, including how the project performers will transparently communicate, eliminate, mitigate, and minimize risks.
Through investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, DOE is pursuing a suite of technologies to produce clean energy across the board to invest in clean manufacturing, tackle the climate crisis and enhance energy security.
To further support DOE’s Hydrogen Shot to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1 per one kilogram in one decade, DOE has announced other resources to support clean hydrogen research and development.
DOE’s new Hydrogen Hub Matchmaker resource is helping clean hydrogen producers, end-users, and others find opportunities to develop networks of production, storage, and transportation infrastructure.
In addition to the hubs, the DOE has launched other clean hydrogen programs:
$1 billion for a Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program:
Electrolysis (using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen) allows for clean hydrogen production from carbon pollution-free power sources like wind, solar, and nuclear.
This program will improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these technologies by supporting the entire innovation chain — from research, development, and demonstration to commercialization and deployment.
$500 million for Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing and Recycling RD&D Activities:
DOE will also support American manufacturing of clean hydrogen equipment, including projects that improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness and support domestic supply chains for key components, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing Initiative.
DOE has also announced funding, as part of the Clean Hydrogen Technology Recycling Research, Development, and Demonstration Program, for innovative approaches to increase the reuse and recycling of clean hydrogen technologies.
In March 2023, DOE announced the first phase of funding for the Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program and the BIL’s manufacturing and recycling initiatives with a $750 million funding opportunity to dramatically reduce the cost of electrolyzers and other clean-hydrogen technologies.
Even before project selections have been announced, these initiatives are already demonstrating payoffs by building investor confidence: private sector commitments from the First Movers Coalition represent 1 million metric tons per year of clean hydrogen demand, and recently announced projects amount to 12 million metric tons per year of planned clean hydrogen production in the United States.
The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office has also completed investments in clean hydrogen facilities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... -and-jobs/
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
FOX NEWS
"Biden admin faces pressure to drop electric vehicle mandate regulations: 'This is alarming'"
Story by Thomas Catenacci
18 OCTOBER 2023
The Biden administration is facing an onslaught of opposition to its proposed fuel economy standards, which critics say would increase consumer costs and unfairly burden U.S. businesses.
The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received more than 62,900 public comments related to the fuel economy regulations it issued in late July during its comment period, which ended Monday.
The so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards received opposition letters from a wide range of stakeholders, including 26 states and the energy, agriculture and automotive industries.
"NHTSA’s proposal is yet another attempt by the Biden administration to restrict Americans’ freedom to decide what vehicle fits their needs and budget," Will Hupman, the American Petroleum Institute's (API) vice president of downstream policy, said in a statement.
"Combined with EPA’s proposed tailpipe emissions standards, these rules amount to a de facto ban on cars and trucks using liquid fuels, which can and should be a part of the solution to reduce carbon emissions," he continued.
API argued in its comment letter to NHTSA that, while it supports policies to lower drive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector, the proposed fuel economy standards would harm consumer choice, raise costs and create a non-resilient transport sector that is "vulnerable to unexpected disruptions" since it would be dependent on electric vehicles.
The group, which is the nation's largest fossil fuel lobby organization, also argued NHTSA lacks the authority to implement regulations that "effectively require electrification" of a portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet.
"NHTSA has departed from Congressional intent and proposed standards that do not meet statutory requirements," American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, another industry group, wrote in a comment letter.
"In particular, we believe that NHTSA exceeds its legal authority by setting the fuel economy standards at a level that is not feasibly achievable by internal combustion engine vehicles, effectively establishing a de facto electric vehicle mandate."
NHTSA's proposed CAFE standards, which the Biden administration argued would help combat climate change and save Americans money, require passenger cars and light trucks to improve fuel efficiency 2% and 4%, respectively, beginning in 2027.
Under the rules, pickup trucks and work vans must boost fuel efficiency 10% every year starting in 2030.
By 2032, the agency said average U.S. fleet fuel economy could reach 58 miles per gallon.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the estimated average fuel economy for model year 2022 cars was 26.4 miles per gallon, meaning the proposed standards would mandate automakers more than double fuel efficiency in less than a decade or face substantial penalties.
"Ford has never paid civil penalties under the CAFE program, and yet by NHTSA’s own analysis Ford would likely pay $1 billion in civil penalties if NHTSA’s Proposal were finalized," Ford Motor Company wrote in its comment letter.
"This is alarming in and of itself, and threatens substantial economic hardship for Ford."
"Under NHTSA’s Proposal, automakers face risks of substantial civil penalties not because they are less capable than others, but because they hold a major portion of the market share for light-duty trucks," the major U.S. automaker continued.
"Money paid in civil penalties could instead be invested toward the transition to EVs, toward higher wages for workers, or toward any number of virtuous policy objectives."
Ford's letter added that the payment of civil penalties serves no "policy objectives."
The company also noted that, while it is projected to pay $1 billion in fines under the proposal, General Motors and Stellantis, the two other major American car brands, face much higher civil penalties.
By comparison, in the entire history of the CAFE program, according to Ford, the total civil penalties paid for light-duty fleets amounts to less than $1.5 billion.
"NHTSA's proposed CAFE rule… cannot be met even with a dramatic increase in electrification and a fleet that is compliant with EPAs proposed rule," Stellantis wrote in a separate letter.
"The proposed rule is both impractical and works against industry, agency and administration electrification goals."
According to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI), an industry group which represents many major automakers, companies will pay more than $14 billion in non-compliance penalties under the proposal, impacting one in every two light trucks in 2027-2032, and one in every three passenger cars in 2027-2029.
Overall, car prices are expected to increase by thousands of dollars.
"The number of non-compliant vehicles and manufacturers projected exceeds reason and will increase costs to the American consumer with absolutely no environmental or fuel savings benefits," the group wrote in its comment letter to NHTSA.
"The projected $3,000 average price increase over today’s vehicles is likely to decrease sales and increase the average age of vehicles on our roads."
In addition, the group, echoing other industry organizations and stakeholders, said the NHTSA fuel economy standards should better align with tailpipe emissions rules issued by the EPA.
"Automakers can ill afford to make the investments necessary to reach the Biden Administration’s goal of 50% EV sales by 203012 while also making major investments in internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles," the AAI continued in its letter.
"Unlike the past, where profits from existing ICE vehicles funded investments in the next generation of ICE vehicles, it is generally understood that (for legacy automakers) profits from ICE vehicles will be used to fund the transition to electric vehicles," it continued.
"Nor can automakers afford to pay billions of dollars in civil penalties for non-compliance with CAFE regulations while still complying with EPA GHG regulations."
NHTSA proposed its regulations just three months after the EPA proposed the most aggressive tailpipe emissions ever crafted, which it said would cause 67% of new sedan, crossover, SUV and light truck purchases to be electric by 2032.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey led a coalition of 26 states in writing a letter opposing NHTSA's rules.
The states argued the agency overstepped its legal authority in issuing the regulations which they further said would threaten national security and place an overwhelming stress on the power grid.
"Our power grid — already stretched thin by increasing electrification across all sectors and other governmental action — could not handle the massive predicted uptick in EVs."
"And even if it could, we don’t have the supply chains to make that manufacturing increase feasible," Morrisey and the other state attorneys general wrote.
"At a minimum, U.S. manufacturers will have no option but to become embroiled with geopolitically troubling suppliers," they continued.
"The Proposed Rule cannot explain how our energy and manufacturing infrastructures will handle the EV wave it wants to create."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 2823&ei=11
"Biden admin faces pressure to drop electric vehicle mandate regulations: 'This is alarming'"
Story by Thomas Catenacci
18 OCTOBER 2023
The Biden administration is facing an onslaught of opposition to its proposed fuel economy standards, which critics say would increase consumer costs and unfairly burden U.S. businesses.
The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received more than 62,900 public comments related to the fuel economy regulations it issued in late July during its comment period, which ended Monday.
The so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards received opposition letters from a wide range of stakeholders, including 26 states and the energy, agriculture and automotive industries.
"NHTSA’s proposal is yet another attempt by the Biden administration to restrict Americans’ freedom to decide what vehicle fits their needs and budget," Will Hupman, the American Petroleum Institute's (API) vice president of downstream policy, said in a statement.
"Combined with EPA’s proposed tailpipe emissions standards, these rules amount to a de facto ban on cars and trucks using liquid fuels, which can and should be a part of the solution to reduce carbon emissions," he continued.
API argued in its comment letter to NHTSA that, while it supports policies to lower drive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector, the proposed fuel economy standards would harm consumer choice, raise costs and create a non-resilient transport sector that is "vulnerable to unexpected disruptions" since it would be dependent on electric vehicles.
The group, which is the nation's largest fossil fuel lobby organization, also argued NHTSA lacks the authority to implement regulations that "effectively require electrification" of a portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet.
"NHTSA has departed from Congressional intent and proposed standards that do not meet statutory requirements," American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, another industry group, wrote in a comment letter.
"In particular, we believe that NHTSA exceeds its legal authority by setting the fuel economy standards at a level that is not feasibly achievable by internal combustion engine vehicles, effectively establishing a de facto electric vehicle mandate."
NHTSA's proposed CAFE standards, which the Biden administration argued would help combat climate change and save Americans money, require passenger cars and light trucks to improve fuel efficiency 2% and 4%, respectively, beginning in 2027.
Under the rules, pickup trucks and work vans must boost fuel efficiency 10% every year starting in 2030.
By 2032, the agency said average U.S. fleet fuel economy could reach 58 miles per gallon.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the estimated average fuel economy for model year 2022 cars was 26.4 miles per gallon, meaning the proposed standards would mandate automakers more than double fuel efficiency in less than a decade or face substantial penalties.
"Ford has never paid civil penalties under the CAFE program, and yet by NHTSA’s own analysis Ford would likely pay $1 billion in civil penalties if NHTSA’s Proposal were finalized," Ford Motor Company wrote in its comment letter.
"This is alarming in and of itself, and threatens substantial economic hardship for Ford."
"Under NHTSA’s Proposal, automakers face risks of substantial civil penalties not because they are less capable than others, but because they hold a major portion of the market share for light-duty trucks," the major U.S. automaker continued.
"Money paid in civil penalties could instead be invested toward the transition to EVs, toward higher wages for workers, or toward any number of virtuous policy objectives."
Ford's letter added that the payment of civil penalties serves no "policy objectives."
The company also noted that, while it is projected to pay $1 billion in fines under the proposal, General Motors and Stellantis, the two other major American car brands, face much higher civil penalties.
By comparison, in the entire history of the CAFE program, according to Ford, the total civil penalties paid for light-duty fleets amounts to less than $1.5 billion.
"NHTSA's proposed CAFE rule… cannot be met even with a dramatic increase in electrification and a fleet that is compliant with EPAs proposed rule," Stellantis wrote in a separate letter.
"The proposed rule is both impractical and works against industry, agency and administration electrification goals."
According to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI), an industry group which represents many major automakers, companies will pay more than $14 billion in non-compliance penalties under the proposal, impacting one in every two light trucks in 2027-2032, and one in every three passenger cars in 2027-2029.
Overall, car prices are expected to increase by thousands of dollars.
"The number of non-compliant vehicles and manufacturers projected exceeds reason and will increase costs to the American consumer with absolutely no environmental or fuel savings benefits," the group wrote in its comment letter to NHTSA.
"The projected $3,000 average price increase over today’s vehicles is likely to decrease sales and increase the average age of vehicles on our roads."
In addition, the group, echoing other industry organizations and stakeholders, said the NHTSA fuel economy standards should better align with tailpipe emissions rules issued by the EPA.
"Automakers can ill afford to make the investments necessary to reach the Biden Administration’s goal of 50% EV sales by 203012 while also making major investments in internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles," the AAI continued in its letter.
"Unlike the past, where profits from existing ICE vehicles funded investments in the next generation of ICE vehicles, it is generally understood that (for legacy automakers) profits from ICE vehicles will be used to fund the transition to electric vehicles," it continued.
"Nor can automakers afford to pay billions of dollars in civil penalties for non-compliance with CAFE regulations while still complying with EPA GHG regulations."
NHTSA proposed its regulations just three months after the EPA proposed the most aggressive tailpipe emissions ever crafted, which it said would cause 67% of new sedan, crossover, SUV and light truck purchases to be electric by 2032.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey led a coalition of 26 states in writing a letter opposing NHTSA's rules.
The states argued the agency overstepped its legal authority in issuing the regulations which they further said would threaten national security and place an overwhelming stress on the power grid.
"Our power grid — already stretched thin by increasing electrification across all sectors and other governmental action — could not handle the massive predicted uptick in EVs."
"And even if it could, we don’t have the supply chains to make that manufacturing increase feasible," Morrisey and the other state attorneys general wrote.
"At a minimum, U.S. manufacturers will have no option but to become embroiled with geopolitically troubling suppliers," they continued.
"The Proposed Rule cannot explain how our energy and manufacturing infrastructures will handle the EV wave it wants to create."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 2823&ei=11
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
OCTOBER 20, 2023 AT 1:56 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
And with the thought in mind, based on indisputable empirical scientific evidence, and this has been known for many years now, not being anything new, that the production of hydrogen is very energy intensive, even with mature technology, so that hydrogen-based steel is about twice as expensive as coal-based steel as a result, let's drop back to October 13, 2023, and the White House PROPAGANDA hand-out titled "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs to Drive Clean Manufacturing and Jobs" where we learn that "investing in American Infrastructure and Manufacturing is a key part of Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda."
Ah, yes, people, BIDE-O-NOMICS ( http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... s/#respond )!
BIDE-O-NOMICS, Joe's MASSIVE BORROW-AND-SPEND CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM to be paid for by the American taxpayers, of course, is a key component of BIDE-O-NISM, which is Joe Biden's political platform based on an Americanized-version of MARXISM, and with BIDE-O-NOMICS as his fiscal weapon of choice, Joe is going to restore the American Dream by building back better to make America great again, all while fighting Donald Trump, the Republicans, the Russians, Putin, and the Chinese for the soul of America!
Going back to the PROPAGANDA SPEW, we have more, as follows, to wit:
Today, President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are announcing seven regional clean hydrogen hubs that were selected to receive $7 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the domestic market for low-cost, clean hydrogen.
end quotes
For those not familiar with her, Biden “energy secretary” Jennifer Granholm is a Canadian-American lawyer, educator, author, political commentator, and politician with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 1984 and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1987 who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about energy, but notwithstanding, became Joe’s “energy secretary” because she is a proven party loyalist who was a member of the presidential transition team for Hussein Obama before he assumed office in 2009 and then she became host of “The War Room” with Jennifer Granholm, and in 2017, she was hired as a CNN political contributor, and more importantly, at least as far as Joe is concerned, because Joe made a campaign promise to select a team that “looks like America” and modernizes the predominantly male, white institution, she won the Miss San Carlos beauty pageant, and then as a young adult, she attempted to launch a Hollywood acting career but abandoned her efforts at age 21, and after that, in 1978, she appeared on The Dating Game, another top qualification to be a member of TEAM BIDEN (cue Bob Seger – Her Strut https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C51c0vuLEng ) and of great importance to Joe, she held jobs as a tour guide at Universal Studios and in customer service at the Los Angeles Times and was the first female tour guide at Marine World Africa USA in Redwood City, piloting boats with 25 tourists aboard.
And now, she is handing out $7 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the domestic market for low-cost, clean hydrogen, so how about that, people, for a real Damon Runyon-type American success story!
Going back to the PROPAGANDA, we have more, to wit:
Advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the President’s vision of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation.
end quotes
And here, people, we really need to be asking ourselves this important question, given that according to a Vox article titled "Why Biden’s multibillion-dollar bet on hydrogen energy is such a big deal - Clean hydrogen can be a lot dirtier than it seems, especially when the fossil fuel industry gets involved" by Rebecca Leber on October 16, 2023, we are going to be on the hook for potentially over $100 billion in incentives that could boost the fossil fuel industry, to wit:
WITH HIS DEMONSTRATED RECORD OF BAD JUDGMENT AND OUTRIGHT FAILED POLICIES (think the southern border, for example) SHOULD WE AS A SANE AND RATIONAL PEOPLE PLACE ANY FAITH WHATSOEVER IN ANY "VISION" JOE BIDEN MIGHT HAVE ABOUT ANYTHING?
AND HOW HAVE WE SUDDENLY BECOME A NATION GOVERNED NOT BY LAWS, BUT BY THE "VISIONS" OF A SENILE, OLD MAN WHO HAS NEVER HELD A REAL JOB IN HIS LIFE, OR BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS, OR PRODUCED ANYTHING OF VALUE, HAVING NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HACK CAREER POLITICIAN FEEDING OFF THE TAXPAYERS LIKE A BOLL WEEVIL IN A COTTON PATCH OR A RAT IN A FARMER'S CORN CRIB, "VISIONS" LIKELY BROUGHT ON BY STOMACH GAS OR SEVERE CONSTIPATION?
All well and good, people, in a PROPAGANDA SPEW, to say that advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the Joe Biden's "vision" of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation, but here in America, we are reality-based, and so we do what all good and loyal Americans should be doing, which is questioning every single word that we hear Joe Biden telling us, giving his propensity to do nothing but tell serial lies and tall tales, so we are going to be putting that vision to the test the caitiff main-stream and legacy media, including Vox, are failing utterly and miserably to do.
And when I say these INSANE GREEN HYDROGEN DREAMS of Joe Biden are nothing new, consider that in 1874, Jules Verne, a French science fiction writer, envisioned a similar hydrogen dream in his book "The Mysterious Island," while in the Vox article cited above, it is stated as follows:
Republican and Democratic politicians alike have dreamed for decades of using the most abundant element in the universe to someday power manufacturing, buildings, and even cars.
end quote
Ah, yes, people, DREAMS!
Stay tuned, more to come!
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
And with the thought in mind, based on indisputable empirical scientific evidence, and this has been known for many years now, not being anything new, that the production of hydrogen is very energy intensive, even with mature technology, so that hydrogen-based steel is about twice as expensive as coal-based steel as a result, let's drop back to October 13, 2023, and the White House PROPAGANDA hand-out titled "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs to Drive Clean Manufacturing and Jobs" where we learn that "investing in American Infrastructure and Manufacturing is a key part of Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda."
Ah, yes, people, BIDE-O-NOMICS ( http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... s/#respond )!
BIDE-O-NOMICS, Joe's MASSIVE BORROW-AND-SPEND CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM to be paid for by the American taxpayers, of course, is a key component of BIDE-O-NISM, which is Joe Biden's political platform based on an Americanized-version of MARXISM, and with BIDE-O-NOMICS as his fiscal weapon of choice, Joe is going to restore the American Dream by building back better to make America great again, all while fighting Donald Trump, the Republicans, the Russians, Putin, and the Chinese for the soul of America!
Going back to the PROPAGANDA SPEW, we have more, as follows, to wit:
Today, President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are announcing seven regional clean hydrogen hubs that were selected to receive $7 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the domestic market for low-cost, clean hydrogen.
end quotes
For those not familiar with her, Biden “energy secretary” Jennifer Granholm is a Canadian-American lawyer, educator, author, political commentator, and politician with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 1984 and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1987 who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about energy, but notwithstanding, became Joe’s “energy secretary” because she is a proven party loyalist who was a member of the presidential transition team for Hussein Obama before he assumed office in 2009 and then she became host of “The War Room” with Jennifer Granholm, and in 2017, she was hired as a CNN political contributor, and more importantly, at least as far as Joe is concerned, because Joe made a campaign promise to select a team that “looks like America” and modernizes the predominantly male, white institution, she won the Miss San Carlos beauty pageant, and then as a young adult, she attempted to launch a Hollywood acting career but abandoned her efforts at age 21, and after that, in 1978, she appeared on The Dating Game, another top qualification to be a member of TEAM BIDEN (cue Bob Seger – Her Strut https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C51c0vuLEng ) and of great importance to Joe, she held jobs as a tour guide at Universal Studios and in customer service at the Los Angeles Times and was the first female tour guide at Marine World Africa USA in Redwood City, piloting boats with 25 tourists aboard.
And now, she is handing out $7 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the domestic market for low-cost, clean hydrogen, so how about that, people, for a real Damon Runyon-type American success story!
Going back to the PROPAGANDA, we have more, to wit:
Advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the President’s vision of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation.
end quotes
And here, people, we really need to be asking ourselves this important question, given that according to a Vox article titled "Why Biden’s multibillion-dollar bet on hydrogen energy is such a big deal - Clean hydrogen can be a lot dirtier than it seems, especially when the fossil fuel industry gets involved" by Rebecca Leber on October 16, 2023, we are going to be on the hook for potentially over $100 billion in incentives that could boost the fossil fuel industry, to wit:
WITH HIS DEMONSTRATED RECORD OF BAD JUDGMENT AND OUTRIGHT FAILED POLICIES (think the southern border, for example) SHOULD WE AS A SANE AND RATIONAL PEOPLE PLACE ANY FAITH WHATSOEVER IN ANY "VISION" JOE BIDEN MIGHT HAVE ABOUT ANYTHING?
AND HOW HAVE WE SUDDENLY BECOME A NATION GOVERNED NOT BY LAWS, BUT BY THE "VISIONS" OF A SENILE, OLD MAN WHO HAS NEVER HELD A REAL JOB IN HIS LIFE, OR BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS, OR PRODUCED ANYTHING OF VALUE, HAVING NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HACK CAREER POLITICIAN FEEDING OFF THE TAXPAYERS LIKE A BOLL WEEVIL IN A COTTON PATCH OR A RAT IN A FARMER'S CORN CRIB, "VISIONS" LIKELY BROUGHT ON BY STOMACH GAS OR SEVERE CONSTIPATION?
All well and good, people, in a PROPAGANDA SPEW, to say that advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the Joe Biden's "vision" of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation, but here in America, we are reality-based, and so we do what all good and loyal Americans should be doing, which is questioning every single word that we hear Joe Biden telling us, giving his propensity to do nothing but tell serial lies and tall tales, so we are going to be putting that vision to the test the caitiff main-stream and legacy media, including Vox, are failing utterly and miserably to do.
And when I say these INSANE GREEN HYDROGEN DREAMS of Joe Biden are nothing new, consider that in 1874, Jules Verne, a French science fiction writer, envisioned a similar hydrogen dream in his book "The Mysterious Island," while in the Vox article cited above, it is stated as follows:
Republican and Democratic politicians alike have dreamed for decades of using the most abundant element in the universe to someday power manufacturing, buildings, and even cars.
end quote
Ah, yes, people, DREAMS!
Stay tuned, more to come!
Re: THE ENVIRONMENT
The Wall Street Journal
"Companies Clash Over Billions of Dollars in Hydrogen Tax Breaks"
Story by Amrith Ramkumar, Richard Rubin
23 OCTOBER 2023
WASHINGTON—Big energy producers are sparring over billions of dollars in subsidies from last year’s climate law, a fight that pits the Biden administration’s goals for economic growth against its efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
The battle is over subsidies to produce clean hydrogen, a potential alternative to oil and natural gas in industries such as steelmaking and trucking where renewable energy and batteries alone aren’t adequate.
The administration is weighing how strictly to define what energy sources can be used to make clean hydrogen and still be eligible for some of the most valuable tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
NextEra Energy, Constellation Energy and Plug Power say the subsidies should be widely available — even to companies that generate carbon emissions — to spur the growth of a hydrogen industry seen as crucial to limiting climate change in the long run.
The businesses and industry groups have made the argument in advertisements everywhere from the New York Times and digital media outlet Semafor to the streaming service Hulu.
They also have made their case in meetings with Biden administration officials, according to people familiar with the matter.
Labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have sided with them.
Companies such as Air Products & Chemicals, meanwhile, say the money should go to businesses that use only renewable energy, which could mean slower development and fewer new jobs.
Environmental groups have made the same argument in newspaper ads; the groups also have appealed to administration officials, a person familiar with the meetings said.
The spat is the latest example of companies in sectors from electric cars to energy fighting over the technical details of clean-energy subsidies that could be worth $1 trillion over a decade.
“The hydrogen rules are make or break,” said Leah Stokes, an associate professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, focused on energy, environment and climate, who advised Democrats on the climate law and is in favor of tight hydrogen tax-credit rules.
The administration missed an August deadline to write the hydrogen rules.
White House officials are considering a range of proposals, including rules that would get stricter over time, a senior administration official said.
Ashley Schapitl, a Treasury spokeswoman, said the agency is trying to make sure the rules strengthen U.S. energy security and address climate change.
The subsidies come atop $7 billion in recently announced federal grants from the 2021 infrastructure law for hydrogen megaprojects across the U.S. to kick-start the industry.
Today, nearly all hydrogen is made by heating natural gas.
The method is cheap, but it generates greenhouse-gas emissions.
Those can be lowered or eliminated by switching to machines powered by renewable energy that split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The new tax credit gets more valuable as the production process generates less emissions.
The maximum amount for the cleanest hydrogen is $3 per kilogram, roughly enough to make green hydrogen cost competitive with hydrogen made from natural gas.
The heart of the current conflict is in whether companies planning to use fossil-fuel power from electricity grids to make hydrogen would have to buy equivalent renewable energy on an hourly basis or a looser annual standard.
Companies such as NextEra, Plug Power and BP say projects should count as green if they use fossil-fuel grid power but buy renewable-energy credits that match their annual usage.
Otherwise, they argue, hydrogen projects won’t be viable in much of the U.S., preventing the job and climate benefits the White House wants.
“If we don’t ever get to having hydrogen available for use, we’ll never solve any problems,” said Emily Fisher, an executive vice president at the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities.
Constellation, the largest U.S. nuclear-plant operator, is arguing for looser rules allowing existing clean-power projects to be used to make hydrogen.
Restrictive rules would halt the company’s plans to invest nearly $1 billion in nuclear-powered hydrogen, a spokesman said.
Constellation and others are part of the Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, an industry group that has advertised against tight regulations.
Opponents — including Air Products, which has plans for green hydrogen facilities that run on new renewable power in states such as Texas — want stricter rules requiring new clean-energy developments and electricity-matching based on hourly demand.
Those rules would likely deny some competitors the tax credits.
The issue is splitting some of the White House’s usual allies.
Environmentalists have said in advertisements in outlets including the Washington Post that many energy producers are trying to hijack clean-energy rules to get credit for projects that would increase pollution.
“We cannot afford the hydrogen tax credit to serve as yet another subsidy for the fossil fuel industry,” a group of senators including Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) wrote last week to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
A separate group of senators including Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) — one of the main architects of the climate law — plans to argue for looser rules to spur the industry and allow more regions to have hydrogen projects, according to a draft of a separate letter to Yellen viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Many analysts expect the government to start with relatively loose rules, then transition to tighter standards such as matching renewable-electricity usage hourly.
Europe has proposed starting hourly matching for its hydrogen rules in 2030.
The American Clean Power Association, an industry group, proposed applying a more relaxed standard to projects that begin construction before Jan. 1, 2029.
Opponents say such an approach would mean nearly all projects finished through the early 2030s would get the looser rules because of how long construction takes, risking an increase in emissions.
“If they get it wrong, it’s really big,” said Craig Segall, vice president of policy for environmental group Evergreen Action.
“It’s harder to make other [Inflation Reduction Act] errors that are worth 100 million tons of CO2 over time.”
Write to Amrith Ramkumar at amrith.ramkumar@wsj.com and Richard Rubin at richard.rubin@wsj.com
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 213f&ei=45
"Companies Clash Over Billions of Dollars in Hydrogen Tax Breaks"
Story by Amrith Ramkumar, Richard Rubin
23 OCTOBER 2023
WASHINGTON—Big energy producers are sparring over billions of dollars in subsidies from last year’s climate law, a fight that pits the Biden administration’s goals for economic growth against its efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
The battle is over subsidies to produce clean hydrogen, a potential alternative to oil and natural gas in industries such as steelmaking and trucking where renewable energy and batteries alone aren’t adequate.
The administration is weighing how strictly to define what energy sources can be used to make clean hydrogen and still be eligible for some of the most valuable tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
NextEra Energy, Constellation Energy and Plug Power say the subsidies should be widely available — even to companies that generate carbon emissions — to spur the growth of a hydrogen industry seen as crucial to limiting climate change in the long run.
The businesses and industry groups have made the argument in advertisements everywhere from the New York Times and digital media outlet Semafor to the streaming service Hulu.
They also have made their case in meetings with Biden administration officials, according to people familiar with the matter.
Labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have sided with them.
Companies such as Air Products & Chemicals, meanwhile, say the money should go to businesses that use only renewable energy, which could mean slower development and fewer new jobs.
Environmental groups have made the same argument in newspaper ads; the groups also have appealed to administration officials, a person familiar with the meetings said.
The spat is the latest example of companies in sectors from electric cars to energy fighting over the technical details of clean-energy subsidies that could be worth $1 trillion over a decade.
“The hydrogen rules are make or break,” said Leah Stokes, an associate professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, focused on energy, environment and climate, who advised Democrats on the climate law and is in favor of tight hydrogen tax-credit rules.
The administration missed an August deadline to write the hydrogen rules.
White House officials are considering a range of proposals, including rules that would get stricter over time, a senior administration official said.
Ashley Schapitl, a Treasury spokeswoman, said the agency is trying to make sure the rules strengthen U.S. energy security and address climate change.
The subsidies come atop $7 billion in recently announced federal grants from the 2021 infrastructure law for hydrogen megaprojects across the U.S. to kick-start the industry.
Today, nearly all hydrogen is made by heating natural gas.
The method is cheap, but it generates greenhouse-gas emissions.
Those can be lowered or eliminated by switching to machines powered by renewable energy that split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The new tax credit gets more valuable as the production process generates less emissions.
The maximum amount for the cleanest hydrogen is $3 per kilogram, roughly enough to make green hydrogen cost competitive with hydrogen made from natural gas.
The heart of the current conflict is in whether companies planning to use fossil-fuel power from electricity grids to make hydrogen would have to buy equivalent renewable energy on an hourly basis or a looser annual standard.
Companies such as NextEra, Plug Power and BP say projects should count as green if they use fossil-fuel grid power but buy renewable-energy credits that match their annual usage.
Otherwise, they argue, hydrogen projects won’t be viable in much of the U.S., preventing the job and climate benefits the White House wants.
“If we don’t ever get to having hydrogen available for use, we’ll never solve any problems,” said Emily Fisher, an executive vice president at the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities.
Constellation, the largest U.S. nuclear-plant operator, is arguing for looser rules allowing existing clean-power projects to be used to make hydrogen.
Restrictive rules would halt the company’s plans to invest nearly $1 billion in nuclear-powered hydrogen, a spokesman said.
Constellation and others are part of the Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, an industry group that has advertised against tight regulations.
Opponents — including Air Products, which has plans for green hydrogen facilities that run on new renewable power in states such as Texas — want stricter rules requiring new clean-energy developments and electricity-matching based on hourly demand.
Those rules would likely deny some competitors the tax credits.
The issue is splitting some of the White House’s usual allies.
Environmentalists have said in advertisements in outlets including the Washington Post that many energy producers are trying to hijack clean-energy rules to get credit for projects that would increase pollution.
“We cannot afford the hydrogen tax credit to serve as yet another subsidy for the fossil fuel industry,” a group of senators including Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) wrote last week to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
A separate group of senators including Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) — one of the main architects of the climate law — plans to argue for looser rules to spur the industry and allow more regions to have hydrogen projects, according to a draft of a separate letter to Yellen viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Many analysts expect the government to start with relatively loose rules, then transition to tighter standards such as matching renewable-electricity usage hourly.
Europe has proposed starting hourly matching for its hydrogen rules in 2030.
The American Clean Power Association, an industry group, proposed applying a more relaxed standard to projects that begin construction before Jan. 1, 2029.
Opponents say such an approach would mean nearly all projects finished through the early 2030s would get the looser rules because of how long construction takes, risking an increase in emissions.
“If they get it wrong, it’s really big,” said Craig Segall, vice president of policy for environmental group Evergreen Action.
“It’s harder to make other [Inflation Reduction Act] errors that are worth 100 million tons of CO2 over time.”
Write to Amrith Ramkumar at amrith.ramkumar@wsj.com and Richard Rubin at richard.rubin@wsj.com
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 213f&ei=45