[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H2SUCCESS: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TO ADVANCE A CLEAN HYDROGEN FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 17, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-799PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RANDY WEBER, Texas,
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan Ranking Member
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico JIM BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
C O N T E N T S
February 17, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 11
Written statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Witnesses:
Mr. Keith Wipke, Laboratory Program Manager at NREL
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Dr. Julio Friedmann, Chief Scientist and Head Carbon Wrangler at
Carbon Direct
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Ms. Rachel Fakhry, Senior Advocate at Natural Resources Defense
Council
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Dr. Tomas Diaz de la Rubia, Vice President for Research and
Partnerships at the University of Oklahoma
Oral Statement............................................... 82
Written Statement............................................ 84
Mr. Sheldon Kimber, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of
Intersect Power
Oral Statement............................................... 89
Written Statement............................................ 91
Discussion....................................................... 95
H2SUCCESS: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TO ADVANCE A CLEAN HYDROGEN FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Jamaal Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. This hearing will now come to order.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess
at any time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting virtually. I want to announce a
couple of reminders to the Members about the conduct of this
hearing. First, Members should keep their video feed on as long
as they are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for
their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted
unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents
they wish to submit for the record, please email them to the
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to
the hearing.
Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are
joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of clean
hydrogen research. This is a timely topic, one that has quickly
risen to the center of energy policymaking and debate. There is
no doubt that hydrogen can play a valuable role in our national
and global decarbonization efforts. But crucial questions and
uncertainties remain, and our work on this Committee can help
resolve them.
In setting the stage for this hearing, I would like to
offer a few thoughts that I believe can help guide us. And I
welcome further discussion with those who may disagree with
some aspects of my perspective. Current hydrogen production
methods are very carbon-intensive and are responsible for 830
million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent
of the annual CO2 emissions of the United Kingdom
and Indonesia combined. We must complement our excitement about
hydrogen's potential with caution and care. In my view, when it
is made from 100 percent renewable electricity, using a process
called electrolysis, what is known as ``green hydrogen,'' has
the potential to make a crucial but targeted contribution to
meeting our climate goals.
We can replace the polluting forms of hydrogen that are
currently used in certain industrial processes. Green hydrogen
could be one of the keys to decarbonizing difficult sectors
like long-haul shipping, aviation, and steel production. And
fuel cells powered by green hydrogen or other storage
mechanisms could help stabilize and secure the grid as we scale
up wind, solar, and geothermal.
There is exciting and necessary research to conduct in the
areas I have just described. And, of course, Federal R&D
(research and development) programs may demonstrate that
additional applications make sense. Across the board,
challenges in hydrogen storage, transportation, durability,
costs, and safety must be addressed. We must also be cognizant
of the fact that the fossil fuel industry is lobbying for a
different vision of our hydrogen future, a much more expansive
one. As our colleagues on the House Committee on Oversight and
Reform have highlighted recently, this is an industry that uses
its wealth to deceive the American people about the nature of
the climate crisis and the solutions we need. That is a fact.
And as scientists and public servants, we have a duty to
subject their claims to intense scrutiny. We are in a climate
emergency, and we do not have time to waste this decade.
When hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, I do not believe
that we should call it clean. In areas where there are
established, safe, widely available, and cost-effective ways to
eliminate carbon emissions, we should not be trying to clear an
uncertain path for hydrogen with public funds. We will have to
be strategic and prioritize. And since we already need to
deploy much more wind and solar just to power the grid, we
should avoid wasting hydrogen in applications like vehicles and
appliances that can run on renewable electricity directly and
more efficiently.
In my State of New York, industry is trying to sell major
expansions of fossil gas infrastructure by promising a future
conversion to hydrogen. Thankfully, our new Governor is not
buying it. Utilities, meanwhile, which are already passing on
outrageous costs to my constituents, want to use hydrogen to
heat our homes. For people who struggle with energy poverty and
injustice, that would raise costs even further. Efficiency and
electrification using heat pumps would reduce those costs.
As these examples show, questions of political economy
cannot be artificially separated from our scientific research
endeavors. There may be additional uses of hydrogen beyond what
I have described that, in theory, can play a transitional role
to a fully renewable future. But if we are going to safely
explore those possibilities, surely we must also discuss the
safeguards and planning capacities needed to actually ensure a
transition rather than simply leaving it to the market. We need
to address the risk of locking in fossil fuel infrastructure
and of creating dangerous new path dependencies. And we must
evaluate the potential impacts on communities not just at one
point in the process but all along the hydrogen supply chain.
If designed and deployed correctly, hydrogen can contribute
to the growth of good, clean-energy jobs and help us limit
global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It is incredibly
important that we meet this moment properly. We cannot afford
to miss the mark.
I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]
Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are
joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of clean
hydrogen research. This is a timely topic, one that has quickly
risen to the center of energy policymaking and debate. There is
no doubt that hydrogen can play a valuable role in our national
and global decarbonization efforts. But crucial questions and
uncertainties remain, and our work on this committee can help
resolve them.
In setting the stage for this hearing, I would like to
offer a few thoughts that I believe can help guide us. And I
welcome further discussion with those who may disagree with
some aspects of my perspective.
Current hydrogen production methods are very carbon
intensive, and are responsible for 830 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide per year--the equivalent of the annual CO2
emissions of the United Kingdom and Indonesia combined. We must
complement our excitement about hydrogen's potential with
caution, and care.
In my view, when it is made from 100% renewable
electricity, using a process called electrolysis, what is known
as ``green hydrogen'' has the potential to make a crucial, but
targeted contribution to meeting our climate goals.
We can replace the polluting forms of hydrogen that are
currently used in certain industrial processes. Green hydrogen
could be one of the keys to decarbonizing difficult sectors
like long-haul shipping, aviation, and steel production. And
fuel cells powered by green hydrogen, or other storage
mechanisms, could help stabilize and secure the grid as we
scale up wind, solar, and geothermal power.
There is exciting and necessary research to conduct in the
areas I have just described. And of course, federal R&D
programs may demonstrate that additional applications make
sense. Across the board, challenges in hydrogen storage,
transportation, durability, costs, and safety must be
addressed.
We must also be cognizant of the fact that the fossil fuel
industry is lobbying for a different vision of our hydrogen
future--a much more expansive one. As our colleagues on the
House Committee on Oversight and Reform have been highlighting
recently, this is an industry that uses its wealth to deceive
the American people about the nature of the climate crisis and
the solutions we need. That is a fact. And as scientists and
public servants, we must subject their claims to intensive
scrutiny.
We are in a climate emergency, and we do not have time to
waste this decade. When hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, I
do not believe that we should call it clean. In areas where
there are established, safe, widely-available, and cost-
effective ways to eliminate carbon emissions, we should not be
trying to clear an uncertain path for hydrogen with public
funds. We will have to be strategic, and prioritize. And since
we already need to deploy much more wind and solar just to
power the grid, we should avoid wasting hydrogen in
applications like vehicles and appliances that can run on
renewable electricity directly-and more efficiently.
In my state of New York, industry is trying to sell major
expansions of fossil gas infrastructure by promising a future
conversion to hydrogen. Thankfully, our new Governor is not
buying it. Utilities, meanwhile, which are already passing on
outrageous costs to my constituents, want to use hydrogen to
heat our homes. For people who struggle with energy poverty and
injustice, that would raise costs even further. Efficiency and
electrification using heat pumps would reduce those costs.
As these examples show, questions of political economy
cannot be artificially separated from our scientific research
endeavors. There may be additional uses of hydrogen beyond what
I have described that, in theory, can play a transitional role
to a fully renewable future. But if we are going to safely
explore those possibilities, surely we must also discuss the
safeguards and planning capacities needed to actually ensure a
transition--rather than simply leaving it to the market. We
need to address the risks of locking in fossil fuel
infrastructure, and of creating dangerous new path
dependencies. And we must evaluate the potential impacts on
communities not just at one point in the process, but all along
the hydrogen supply chain.
If designed and deployed correctly, hydrogen can contribute
to the growth of good, clean energy jobs, and help us limit
global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It is incredibly
important that we meet this moment properly. We cannot afford
to miss the mark.
I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Chairman Bowman. With that, I now recognize Mr. Weber for
an opening statement.
I believe Mr. Weber is not here.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas to make an opening
statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
As Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I've long
emphasized the importance of investing in American innovation
to advance the next generation of clean energy, to export
clean-energy technologies, and to ensure that--the long-term
independence of the U.S. energy sector. This means taking and
all-of-the-above approach that embraces a wide range of energy
sources like renewables, advanced nuclear, research into the
cleaner more efficient use of fossil fuels.
Today, we have an opportunity to examine the status of
hydrogen energy research in the United States, a key technology
area that could leverage and strengthen many aspects of this
diverse energy portfolio. In recent years, we've all seen the
global push for hydrogen. Hydrogen energy technologies have the
potential to diversify exportable abundant and clean, and they
hold great promise for the U.S. energy sector and its work
force.
For example, in Oklahoma it is projected that hydrogen
economy would add more than 6,000 jobs and provide economic
benefits between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion for the State.
Oklahoma is home to diverse energy resources like natural gas,
wind energy, extensive pipeline networks, carbon sequestration
facilities, geothermal, and premier hydrogen end-use potential.
We are well-positioned to lead the way in advancing next-
generation hydrogen energy technologies.
But today, many challenges remain on the path to their
commercial success, and we must address these through strategic
investment in both public-private partnerships and fundamental
research programs. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE)
announced two RFIs (requests for information) to inform how
they can implement $9.5 billion in hydrogen initiatives
authorized by the infrastructure bill. I agree with my
colleague Mr. Weber. This is an unprecedented expansion. The
Department of Energy has a huge task ahead of them. They need
to do this right both to effectively build out our hydrogen
technologies and to meet our responsibilities to the American
taxpayer.
It's our job on the Science Committee to monitor and guide
these kinds of investments. I look forward to continuing to
work with my friends across the aisle on comprehensive DOE
hydrogen research legislation that will provide necessary
structure and long-term direction for this growth.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today and
for outlining their vision to make affordable hydrogen energy a
reality for the next generation. Thank you, Chairman Bowman,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
As Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I have long
emphasized the importance of investing in American innovation
to advance the next generation of clean energy, to export clean
energy technologies, and to ensure the long term independence
of the
U.S. energy sector. This means taking an all-of-the-above
approach that embraces a wide range of energy sources like
renewables, advanced nuclear, and research into the cleaner and
more efficient use of fossil fuels.
Today, we have an opportunity to examine the status of
hydrogen energy research in the United States--a key technology
area that could leverage and strengthen many aspects of this
diverse energy portfolio.
In recent years, we've all seen the global push for
hydrogen. Hydrogen energy technologies have the potential to be
versatile, exportable, abundant, and clean--and they hold great
promise for the U.S. energy sector and its workforce.
For example, in Oklahoma it is projected that a hydrogen
economy could add more than 6,000 jobs and provide economic
benefits between $1.5--$2.5 billion dollars for the state.
Oklahoma is home to diverse energy resources like natural gas,
wind energy, extensive pipeline networks, carbon sequestration
facilities, geothermal, and premier hydrogen end-use potential.
We are well-positioned to lead the way in advancing next-
generation hydrogen energy technologies.
But today, many challenges remain on the path to their
commercial success, and we must address these through strategic
investments in both public-private partnerships and fundamental
research programs.
On Tuesday, the Department of Energy announced two RFIs to
inform how they implement $9.5 billion dollars in hydrogen
initiatives authorized by the infrastructure bill. As my
colleague Mr. Weber said, this is an unprecedented expansion.
The Department of Energy has a huge task ahead of them. They
need to do this right--both to effectively build out our
hydrogen technologies and to meet their responsibilities to the
American taxpayer. It's our job on the Science Committee to
monitor and guide these kinds of investments. I look forward to
continuing to work with my friends across the aisle on
comprehensive DOE hydrogen research legislation that will
provide necessary structure and long-term direction for this
growth.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today,
and for outlining their vision to make affordable hydrogen
energy a reality for the next generation. Thank you, Chairman
Bowman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Bowman, for holding
today's hearing on R&D priorities to advance the U.S.'s
hydrogen economy.
This week marks the anniversary of the 2021 Texas blackout,
caused by an extreme winter storm event that led to a massive
electricity generation failure in my home state. The event
resulted in a loss of power for more than 4.5 million homes,
leaving millions of people without heat and water in frigid
temperatures. The blackout brought needed attention to our
nation's energy infrastructure, and a year later we are still
examining solutions to strengthen the electrical grid against
future adverse weather conditions. This hearing is timely
because some experts point to hydrogen as being uniquely suited
to offer multipurpose, long duration, low-carbon energy storage
solutions that will enhance the resilience, flexibility, and
reliability of our power generation.
I look forward to learning more about hydrogen's potential
to improve the stability of the grid, and about the many other
applications of these technologies. That said, while I welcome
an energy future where hydrogen will power the hardest to
decarbonize sectors, this committee cannot overlook the
challenges that must be overcome to enable hydrogen's widescale
deployment. These barriers include hydrogen production costs,
bulk storage, transportation and distribution, and
environmental and safety considerations.
In support of this effort, DOE under the Biden
Administration launched its Hydrogen Energy Earthshot last
year-an effort to set ambitious targets to make key clean
hydrogen technologies affordable in the next decade. The
Hydrogen Energy Earthshot sets a goal to reduce the cost of
hydrogen to one dollar per one kilogram of clean hydrogen in
ten years, and I look forward to our panel of witnesses
discussing how the United States will achieve this goal.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not also mention the $8
billion included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill to
support the development of four clean hydrogen hubs across the
United States to further the production, processing, delivery,
storage, and end-use of clean hydrogen. This Committee is
charged with providing Congressional oversight of DOE's entire
energy R&D portfolio. So we have an important role to play in
ensuring the success of these hubs as they help to chart
hydrogen's place in our nation's cleaner energy future.
I want to thank this excellent panel of witnesses from our
National Laboratories, academia, the environmental justice
community, and industry for joining today's hearing. This panel
reflects the many partnerships needed to spur innovation in the
next generation of energy technologies. I am eager for today's
discussion to serve as a blueprint for our committee's future
legislation in this important area.
With that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
When it comes to the future of clean energy, hydrogen is
one of the most exciting and widely discussed topics. And for
good reason: it is clean, abundantly available, adaptable to
multiple industries, and versatile for use with other fuel
sources and current infrastructure. That is why we are
currently seeing unprecedented levels of investment and
interest in hydrogen energy production.
The Department of Energy carries out hydrogen R&D
activities primarily through its Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. As a part of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, DOE has been directed to spend approximately $9.5
billion for the advancement of hydrogen as an energy source.
The vast majority of that pot of money, $8 billion, is
reserved for the establishment of at least four regional
hydrogen hubs, which I know will be a major topic of discussion
this morning. While I didn't support the infrastructure bill
because of the Trillions of dollars of new spending and the tax
increases on American families, I do agree that we need to
invest in hydrogen R&D. That said, $8 billion for regional
hydrogen hubs is a massive expansion.
In FY21, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office had
a budget of just $150 million, which means funding for these
regional hubs will increase funding for these activities by
more than a factor of 50. And by the way--if we can get $8
billion dollars for these hubs, can we get some funding for the
Versatile Test Reactor? If electric vehicles are
infrastructure, then surely VTRs are too!
Regardless, we need to ensure that these massive
investments in regional hydrogen hubs produce results that 5can
be used in a way that benefits the American taxpayer. While I'm
optimistic that these hubs will be successful, I am concerned
that such a large expansion leaves us vulnerable to inefficient
spending. Scaling up programs like this is not easy, and I'm
also concerned that critical research and development
activities will fall behind.
Putting our all our eggs in one basket could leave us in a
scenario where hydrogen's ultimate widespread deployment is
stalled by the need for more research. DOE needs to be active
in this space, supporting robust R&D programs and activities,
including at the fundamental and basic research level to
complement, or even complete, the work done at these hubs.
Through a coordinated, cross-cutting effort with the
Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil
Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity, ARPA-E, and the Office of
Science, DOE is uniquely positioned to advance key components
of affordable production, transport, storage, and use of clean
hydrogen across different sectors. But in order to do that
effectively, we need to update and modernize the scope of DOE's
hydrogen research and development activities.
The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office was last
authorized in 2005 and the authorizing language focuses on a
narrow range of application areas. Think about how much your
phone has modernized in the last 15 years! That is why I am
pleased we are close to finalizing legislation that provides
strong support and long-term guidance for hydrogen research,
development, and demonstration at DOE.
We need to make sure the U.S. research enterprise isn't
simply reacting to discoveries, they are driving them and
staying at the forefront of what's next.
I am hopeful that today's hearing will inform the final
steps to producing this legislation. I want to thank my
colleagues for their bipartisan work on this issue and look
forward to the discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Bowman. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witnesses. Mr. Keith Wipke--sorry, Mr. Keith Wipke--is a
Laboratory Program Manager for the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
Technologies Program at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), where he worked since 1993. The program
covers all aspects of hydrogen and fuel cells from hydrogen
production with renewables to end-use applications.
Dr. Julio Friedmann is Chief Scientist and Head Carbon
Wrangler at Carbon Direct. Prior to this role, he was a Senior
Research Scholar at the Center for Global Energy Policy at
Columbia University where he led the Carbon Management Research
Initiative. He has held leadership roles at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and the Department of Energy.
Ms. Rachel Fakhry is a Senior Advocate at Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC). She leads the Hydrogen and Energy
Innovation Portfolio at NRDC and designs policy and regulatory
frameworks to leverage the technology's potential to support
decarbonization goals--excuse me--as well as internalize the
guardrails necessary to mitigate its risk. She is also the
green hydrogen sector lead for the U.N. High Level Climate
Champions where she leads the organization's global strategy in
this area.
Dr. Tomas Diaz de la Rubio--Rubia, excuse me, is the Vice
President for Research and Partnerships at the University of
Oklahoma (OU). Prior to this role, Dr. Diaz de la Rubia was the
Chief Scientific Officer and Senior Vice President for
Strategic Initiatives at Purdue University. He has also held
senior roles at Deloitte Consulting and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.
And last but certainly not least, Mr. Sheldon Kimber is
Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Intersect Power, a
developer of utility-scale renewables. In his prior role as COO
(Chief Operating Officer) of Recurrent Energy, he led the
company's development, engineering, procurement, construction,
and operations activities globally. He also holds an MBA
(Master of Business Administration) from UC (University of
California) Berkeley's Haas School of Business, where he
teaches project finance in the MBA program.
Thank you all for joining us today. As our witnesses should
know, you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. When you all have completed your spoken testimony, we
will begin with questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. We will start with Mr. Wipke.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KEITH WIPKE,
LABORATORY PROGRAM MANAGER AT NREL
Mr. Wipke. Ranking Member Lucas, Chairman Bowman, Ranking
Member Weber, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to discuss the state of hydrogen research and
development in the United States. I'm Keith Wipke, and I've
been with National Renewable Energy for 29 years and have led
our fuel zone hydrogen technologies program for almost a
decade. I would like to highlight hydrogen's opportunities and
research challenges, how the national labs are addressing these
to benefit our country, and the continued research investments
needed.
Throughout the world, hydrogen is increasingly recognized
as a critical central complement for a clean, sustainable,
efficient, and economic energy system. Hydrogen is remarkable
for its ability to carry, store, and convert energy to connect
sectors that are harder to electrify or decarbonize. This
chemical energy can be converted to products and fuels used to
generate electricity and heat or stored to enable larger-scale
deployment and use of renewable electricity. The U.S.
Department of Energy's H2@Scale vision embodies the tremendous
opportunities hydrogen presents for transforming our energy
system, the major challenges for hydrogen-related cost, scale,
durability, and manufacturability. Widespread deployment of
hydrogen will require cost reductions as current large-scale
clean production costs are $5 to $6 a kilogram or higher.
DOE's Hydrogen Shot initiative seeks to reduce the costs by
80 percent to $1 per kilogram of hydrogen in a decade, which
would unlock new markets for hydrogen, including steel
manufacturing, clean ammonia, energy storage, and zero-emission
heavy-duty trucks.
The growth of electrolyzer deployments in the United States
has been modest compared to the rapid scaleup elsewhere. By
accelerating its activities in support for large deployment,
the United States has an opportunity to lead the world in
creating and domestically manufacturing technologies that
provide cost-competitive clean hydrogen. This real-world
experience will feedback into the R&D cycle and continue to
drive costs down. Electrolyzer systems that produce hydrogen
are commercially available today but are fabricated at low
volumes and not sufficiently affordable, durable, or efficient
to be deployed at large-scale in our grid. And for hydrogen-
powered long-haul trucks with million-mile lifetimes, the
industry needs efficient fuel cell systems that are four to
five times more durable.
DOE's hydrogen program is taking an all-hands-on-deck
approach to achieve the Hydrogen Shot goal. The hydrogen
community, especially our national laboratories, is pulling
together to address worldwide challenges. The Nation's crown
jewels of research staff and experimental capabilities reside
in our national lab system. Unique expertise and facilities
developed to help commercialize fuel cell cars are now being
leveraged to further develop hydrogen technologies. DOE's
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technologies Office within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is advancing R&D through
multi-lab consortia on hydrogen production, fuel cells,
storage, and blending hydrogen with natural gas. The Office of
Science's Basic Energy Sciences program supports fundamental
research in electrochemistry, materials science, and chemical
science to improve our understanding and development of new
hydrogen technologies.
NREL, Idaho National Laboratory, and the National Energy
Technology Laboratory are collaborating to conduct research and
analysis on integrated energy systems incorporating renewable,
nuclear, and fossil energy. And NREL has launched a major
initiative with support from DOE called ARIES, or Advanced
Research on Integrated Energy Systems, to match the complexity
of the modern energy system.
Private-sector partnerships are one of the most important
pathways to reach our country's carbon reduction goals and
maintain competitive advantage and innovation. Industry
provides the market drivers and means to scale up laboratory
innovations into domestic products and jobs. Significant
national investments like those we've seen recently will
accelerate development of hydrogen technologies and provide the
opportunity for U.S. market leadership internationally. A
combination of longer-term and higher-risk R&D with big
payoffs, balanced with near-term demonstrations and deployments
of existing technologies, will accelerate the market, provide
feedback on remaining research challenges, and keep the
innovation pipeline flowing.
There are still key research opportunities to develop
advanced hydrogen production techniques that can take advantage
of renewable and nuclear power or use solar energy directly,
and further development is needed to integrate hydrogen into
new applications such as making net-zero CO2
chemicals and liquid fuels. Investments in hydrogen R&D will
provide significant national security, economic, and
environmental benefits to our country. National lab research is
lowering the cost and increasing the scale of technologies to
make, move, store, and use hydrogen across multiple energy
sectors.
NREL's vision supports leading an energy transition in
which solutions are inclusively designed and benefits are
equitably distributed. Clean hydrogen can be made anywhere
there is clean electricity, enabling renewable power jobs for
rural America while cleaning up the air in cities for those who
often suffer from the worst air quality. We look forward to
continued innovation, and thank you for your support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wipke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Wipke.
Dr. Friedmann is now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JULIO FRIEDMANN,
CHIEF SCIENTIST AND HEAD CARBON WRANGLER
AT CARBON DIRECT
Dr. Friedmann. Thank you very much, Chairman Bowman,
Ranking Member Weber, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of both
the Full and Subcommittee. Thank you so much for inviting me
here today. My name is Dr. Julio Friedmann. I am the Chief
Scientist at Carbon Direct, a science-based firm that works
with partners to make carbon reductions and carbon removals
real. It is an honor to appear before this Committee to discuss
the status of hydrogen technology, as well as key RD&D
(research, development, and deployment) priorities and
strategies for innovation and investment. You have my written
testimony, which cites my work at Columbia University and
others. I will focus on a subset in my oral testimony.
In short, the world is coming on fast. The investment of
major volumes of money, shifting policy landscapes everywhere
from Japan to Europe to Chile are changing the way the world
thinks about hydrogen and how it will be used today and in the
future. The United States can lead in innovation and in speed
to market. That's our superpower. We have just passed
legislation with unprecedented funding. That funding should be
used with a deployment focused around innovation, not a
discovery focus. We should include work on existing assets, as
well as assets yet to be built. We should focus on
infrastructure and infrastructure design, planning, and
finance, as well as core innovations. In short, there's lots of
room to innovate, many ways to reduce cost, many ways to
improve performance. I detailed these in my written testimony.
A few brief words about supply side. If we're going to make
hydrogen, it should be low-carbon hydrogen. The focus should be
on carbon emissions. It's not a question of blue, green, or
bio. If you're tall enough to go on this ride, that means you
have a very low lifecycle carbon index. That should include
emissions, as well as produced emissions, as well as embodied
emissions. We can have low or even subzero carbon intensities
if we keep our eye on that goal.
We should invest in novel processes, on a pure green
hydrogen play. New membranes, membrane-less technology, photo
catalysis, microbial pathways, and more provide really great
opportunities for more supply at lower cost. That, however, is
not the only way to make super-low carbon hydrogen. Waste
biomass to hydrogen is born zero. Pyrolysis, gasifiers, other
pathways can make it. If we focus carefully on that again, we
can make hydrogen with a subzero carbon footprint.
Novel pathways like high temperature water cracking from
high temperature nuclear cycles like sulfur iodine or methane
pyrolysis also hold promise. Most people think just about the
modules. I will encourage you to think at a slightly larger
scale. Improved materials and efficiencies are great and
important, but we should be thinking about the balance of
systems cost, how to integrate with the grid, advances in
manufacturing for hydrogen production as well.
As important as supply is, the use is where the action is.
We need way more focus in our industrial ecosystem and
innovation on use of clean hydrogen, in particular in heavy
industry and hard-to-abate sectors, steel, chemicals, cement,
glass. Maybe we want to just throw hydrogen into a blast
furnace. I kind of doubt it. We should be thinking more about
how exactly we are going to use these things in existing assets
and new ones that include something that Dr. Wipke mentioned,
the creation of synthetic fuels, ammonia, circular methanol,
advanced aviation fuels, and so forth, as well as applications
in long-duration storage.
A few key topics in and around innovation deserves special
attention. One of those is the risks of hydrogen leakage. Right
now, hydrogen is monitored for safety. That's a couple of
percent per year of leakage risk. We need to do better than
that. We should be looking at subfraction of a percent. We
should be looking at something like .5 percent annual leakage
or less. That is a way to ensure safety to communities, as well
as good climate outcomes.
Second, we need to focus on human capital. There are just
not enough human beings today in this arena, not to innovate,
start companies, make patents, manufacture, or meet the rapidly
growing demand. We will just need more.
Finally, we should focus on setting standards for the
production of clean hydrogen and clear definitions of what that
should mean. Those definitions are in--are that the requirement
to make those definitions is in IIJA (Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act). Hopefully, we will see the Department of Energy
deliver those soon.
There are good roles for many DOE offices and national
labs, also for universities and companies, also for other
government agencies, NSF (National Science Foundation), NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology), EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency), Department of Defense,
Labor, Department of Transportation, and others. I look forward
to taking your questions to dive into some of these details.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Friedmann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Friedmann.
Ms. Fakhry is now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MS. RACHEL FAKHRY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
AT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Fakhry. Thank you, Chair Bowman, Ranking Member Lucas,
Ranking Member Weber, and Members of the Full and Subcommittee.
Thank you for having me here today. This is exactly the sort of
informed deliberation we need at such a critical time in
hydrogen's development. My name is Rachel Fakhry, and I lead
the hydrogen work at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The targeted deployment of green hydrogen presents exciting
opportunities for climate progress, public health, and quality
jobs. The main question we should be addressing today is how
can we best steward taxpayers' dollars to advance hydrogen in
the most efficient and beneficial way? I'll focus on three key
points.
First, green hydrogen technology offers a great opportunity
to support our climate goals and propel the United States to
the forefront of the global clean-energy innovation race. But
we must be acutely sensitive to hydrogen's serious risks, which
will require robust safeguards to avoid burdening Americans
with high energy costs, damaging air pollution, and
jeopardizing climate progress.
Finally, parts of DOE's hydrogen program need re-
examination. Congress can and should direct DOE to set new
priorities to meet hydrogen's emerging challenges. To my first
point, and as my fellow witnesses have stated, hydrogen can
replace fossil fuels in sectors of the economy with few other
clean alternatives, including maritime shipping, aviation, and
steelmaking. Therefore, green hydrogen can play a key role in
helping us achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas global economy by
2050. DOE is uniquely positioned to lead in driving technology
forward at a critical point in our fight against the climate
crisis.
However, it is also vitally important that we recognize
that hydrogen technology has serious risks that require
safeguards and caution. Hydrogen must be used sparingly because
its production and use are energy-intensive. For example, it
could require up to five times more electricity to heat a home
with hydrogen than an efficient heat pump. This means that
hydrogen is largely an ill-advised and costly solution outside
of those challenging sectors with limited alternatives.
Shoehorning hydrogen into sectors with more affordable clean-
energy alternatives risk saddling Americans with costly
solutions and complicating the task of decarbonizing our
economy.
Hydrogen production requires rigorous safeguards to ensure
it's actually clean, as Dr. Friedmann said. Even emerging
production pathways touted as clean, they admit dangerous
amounts of greenhouse gases. It is critical that all Federal
funding be exclusively allocated to hydrogen projects that can
verifiably demonstrate very low carbon intensities and no
harmful pollution impacts. But we already know that zero
emissions, green hydrogen has the most potential for cost
reductions and is the resource most strictly aligned with U.S.
long-term goals for protecting our climates and the health of
our communities.
We also need more research on the climate and public health
impacts of hydrogen transport, storage, and use, as Dr.
Friedmann alluded to. And until we better understand those, we
should approach hydrogen investments with caution. For example,
when burned, hydrogen can produce worse air pollution than
methane gas.
This brings me to my final point. DOE's portfolio has
delivered commendable successes, but hydrogen's role in the
economy is significantly shifting, and it's time for Congress
to direct DOE to set new priorities to advance the technology
in a no-regrets manner.
We have three primary recommendations. One, recognizing
that there has been incredible advancement in clean-energy
solutions like renewable energy and electrification. DOE must
better tease out hydrogen's unique role in pathways to net zero
by 2050. This should be the very bedrock for making hydrogen
investments and would foster optimal stewardship of taxpayer
money.
Two, DOE's work should only prioritize the advancement of
green hydrogen in those hard-to-electrify sectors. DOE should
also phase down work on hydrogen applications that can be
served by more affordable clean alternatives such as buildings
and passenger cars. This strategic focus is necessary, given
the short time window to 2050. It would also propel the United
States to the forefront of clean-energy innovation, bolster our
competitive edge globally, and support U.S. ambitions to become
a hydrogen exporter.
And finally, DOE should investigate the climate impact of
hydrogen leakage across its value chain and air pollution
impacts of hydrogen use and develop necessary solutions to
mitigate them.
Thank you, and we look forward to working with you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fakhry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much, Ms. Fakhry.
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia, you're now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TOMAS DIAZ DE LA RUBIA,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND PARTNERSHIPS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman
Bowman, Ranking Member Lucas, Subcommittee Ranking Member
Weber, and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Tomas Diaz de la Rubia, Vice
President for Research and Partnerships at the University of
Oklahoma. As Chairman Bowman mentioned, prior to this position,
I spent the first part of my career at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, one of the DOE's 17 national laboratories,
serving in various roles, including Executive Director for
Science and Technology and Chief Research Officer. These
experiences, I believe, have given me important insights on
public-private partnerships, innovation, and work force
development that are relevant to today's topic, the future of
hydrogen to advance clean energy and climate goals.
Cost remains a major obstacle for advancing economically
viable, clean hydrogen. On June 7, 2021, DOE announced an
ambitious goal through its Hydrogen EarthShot to reduce the
cost of hydrogen by 80 percent to $1 a kilogram in just 10
years. At present, clean hydrogen produced using renewables,
for example, costs about five times the DOE goal. The
bipartisan American Investment and Jobs Act passed by Congress
in November 2021 has made a significant investment in hydrogen.
Basic investments such as these are critical and essential.
However, they alone are not sufficient to meet DOE's cost goals
and overcome significant barriers to clean hydrogen development
and deployment.
Scientific breakthroughs are still needed to advance
hydrogen technologies that do not meet carbon dioxide and are
carbon-neutral. A focused and dedicated DOE Office of Science
support for a fundamental research program could accelerate
innovation and directly support planned DOE applied research,
demonstration, and deployment activities.
I recommend the creation of a hydrogen and fuel cell
innovation center, modeled after the DOE's Energy Innovation
Hubs. The center could be modeled after those hubs such as
those in energy storage, solar fuels, desalination, and nuclear
reactor modeling. Several key attributes that have made those
centers successful include tackling a specific energy grand
challenge over a period of 5 to 10 years; clear and measurable
metrics; assembling multidisciplinary, multi-institutional
teams from DOE national labs, research universities, and the
private sector; and addressing the science, engineering, and
technology challenges simultaneously.
While a dedicated fundamental research program will address
the scientific challenges and develop the future of the clean
hydrogen work force, the proposed center will also be,
importantly, a bridge between new discoveries and the clean-
energy demonstration hubs proposed in the infrastructure bill.
This is a gap that must be filled. Regional diversity and
strong public-private partnerships are also essential for the
successful and sustained deployment of clean hydrogen
technologies.
In early 2021, Governor and the State legislature created
the Hydrogen Production Transportation and Infrastructure Task
Force in Oklahoma, and I had the privilege of serving as Co-
Chair of the Subcommittee on Hydrogen Production. The task
force delivered a comprehensive report to the Governor that was
published in December 2021, and in this report, the task force
found that Oklahoma, as Ranking Member Lucas mentioned earlier,
has inherent advantages that position it as a future regional
leader in the hydrogen economy. Oklahoma ranks fifth in the
Nation in natural gas production and is the Nation's third-
largest producer of renewable electricity from wind. In
addition, Oklahoma, along with its regional partners, has
extensive natural gas and hydrogen pipeline infrastructure; a
highly skilled oil, gas, and renewable energy work force; low-
cost electricity; access to abundant water sources; abundant
CO2 and hydrogen-ready geologic pore space; and
many, many companies are already engaging in the hydrogen
economy supply chain, including, importantly, its end use.
In conclusion, States like Oklahoma and our regional
partners are well-positioned to advance a clean-energy hydrogen
economy. I want to thank the Members of the Committee for
advancing new Federal opportunities in hydrogen in the American
Infrastructure and Jobs Act such as the hydrogen hubs and
related research and development activities. In Oklahoma, we
are bringing together a broad regional coalition of
stakeholders from State and local governments, academia,
national laboratories, tribal nations, nonprofits, and local
communities. As the Committee looks for additional
opportunities to help advance a hydrogen economy, I'd recommend
legislation that establishes a dedicated use-inspired
fundamental research program to advance carbon-neutral hydrogen
through a hydrogen and fuel cell innovation center that will
tackle the hardest science and technology challenges and
coordinate activities across the innovation spectrum. Thank you
for your strong support and interest in this critical energy
topic.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Diaz de la Rubia follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Diaz de la Rubia, for your
comments.
Mr. Kimber, you are now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MR. SHELDON KIMBER,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CO-FOUNDER
OF INTERSECT POWER
Mr. Kimber. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman, the
Ranking Member, and the Committee for the invitation to appear
today.
This Committee's focus on clean hydrogen is both
appropriate and timely as the historic affordability and
availability of clean power is beginning to unlock hydrogen's
long-awaited potential. This is an enormous opportunity for our
Nation, but we need the help of government to capture it.
Clean hydrogen is a game-changing technology that will
reduce the cost and increase the pace of our transition to a
decarbonized economy. Converting to electric power sources from
combustion sources is a critical step. But electrification
alone will not decarbonize many heavy-duty carbon-intensive
sectors of the economy.
This is why clean hydrogen is so critical. Clean hydrogen
also empowers local economies that depend on today's fossil
fuel industry to benefit from the expanding energy transition.
Several rural areas of the United States hold enormous
potential for clean hydrogen, particularly Texas and Oklahoma,
which seems to be getting quite a bit of attention in this
hearing. These States have abundant wind and solar generation
potential, a vast network of pipeline infrastructure, and a
qualified work force. I believe that they are poised to become
the Permian basin of clean hydrogen.
But part of their ability to do so will be driven by cost.
The DOE's Hydrogen EarthShot initiative is focused on low-cost
clean hydrogen in the next decade, and I applaud the
establishment for the electrolysis program included in the
infrastructure bill. But in addition to electrolyzer technology
advances, the key to cost reduction will really be the rapid
deployment at massive scale. In fact, it is the rapid scaling
of the solar industry, particularly the cost-effective abundant
clean power that it provides, that is unlocking the long-
awaited potential of clean hydrogen itself. We've seen this
with wind, we have seen this with solar, and we've seen this
with batteries. And electrolyzer technology can and should be
next.
The research investments of the past have already given us
many of the tools we need to build a clean hydrogen economy. I
believe what is missing now are the first large-scale
deployments of already-existing technologies. These initial
large projects will drive down costs as manufacturing scales
up.
As one of the leading American developers of clean-energy
resources, my company is in conversations with natural gas
pipelines, local distribution companies, and end users, and
they all want lower carbon fuels in the pipes. Demand for
carbon emissions reductions through voluntary corporate
commitments sets up a unique opportunity for DOE to connect
demand with deployment. DOE can help put hydrogen in these
pipelines through large-scale projects like by grant funding
and regulatory coordination. This targeted approach can begin
to build the bridge between clean energy and an incumbent
fossil fuel industry.
In my view, deployment should be accelerated by DOE in
three specific ways. First, this emerging industry needs clear
and defensible carbon accounting guidance. With this in place,
the right market signals will exist to offer voluntary markets
new options to decarbonize. This approach should consider the
carbon impact of the full fuel lifecycle, including onsite
emissions from hydrogen generation, as well as upstream
feedstock production.
Second, we must ensure that DOE's hydrogen hubs encourage
large-scale hydrogen production focused on industrial processes
or pipelines and not focus purely on transportation.
Decarbonizing today's consumers of fossil fuel-based hydrogen
primarily in refining and ammonia production is one of the
best-use cases for green hydrogen as a decarbonization lever.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, blending clean
hydrogen into the national gas pipeline system will leverage
the billions of dollars in private capital that have already
been invested there. This must start by rapidly testing and
validating the safety of hydrogen blending into existing pipes.
This work will be critical to providing the regulatory
certainty for pipeline companies and asset developers alike to
deploy private capital.
In conclusion, DOE, with the backing of Congress, holds
several keys to unlocking clean hydrogen's potential. Clean
hydrogen is an opportunity for the United States to leverage
its renewable resources and its conventional energy expertise
into a leadership position in the energy transition. We cannot
afford to cede this opportunity to other countries, as we have
in other clean-energy technologies. The world will decarbonize
with or without the U.S. Government, but what stands before us
is the opportunity to lead, as we have in the past. It is the
leadership--it is this leadership that has insured our position
in the world through prior transitions, and continued
leadership is required to maintain that position.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee. I'm happy to answer questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kimber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Kimber.
At this point, we will begin our first round of questions.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fakhry, thank you for your testimony. One of your
recommendations was that DOE take a more holistic approach to
its hydrogen R&D portfolio by tacking it in connection to
other--tackling it in connection to other solutions and to our
overall climate goals. Can you elaborate on what that might
look like? And should DOE be thinking about applying this
approach in other arenas as well?
Ms. Fakhry. Thank you, Chair. We have a short time window
to 2050 to decarbonize our economy and achieve our net-zero
greenhouse gas emission goals. And we still have quite a few
clean-energy solutions to develop. So we need to be very
strategic in how we spend our RD&D dollars over the next 10
years, 20 years, and we need to focus on those solutions that
are most likely going to play a major role in helping us
achieve our goals and securing an affordable and reliable
transition. And in order to do that, the DOE has to chart
holistic pathways that get us to our goals of net zero
efficiently, encompassing all technologies, both existing and
under RD&D, and tease out RD&D priorities on this basis. And
this very much applies to hydrogen. The DOE has to do a better
job at teasing out its unique role relative to other solutions
and established goals.
Currently, the Department has a tendency to look at
hydrogen in a more insular fashion. However, the good thing is
this is changing. We are seeing great initiatives by the
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, and we should
encourage that. And absolutely, Chair Bowman, the DOE has to
adopt this approach across its portfolio. We would like to see
the Office of Policy work better with the technology offices in
setting RD&D priorities that are collaboration across
technology offices considering the need to carve out unique
roles. And Congress should not only encourage such a
collaboration but also provide dedicated funding and encourage
the establishment of metrics and milestones to ensure tangible
progress.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wipke, electrolysis is currently the key process for
producing hydrogen from 100 percent renewable energy. The
current cost of hydrogen production using this method is about
$5 per kilogram of hydrogen. This past summer, DOE launched a
Hydrogen Shot seeking to reduce this cost by 80 percent to $1
per kilogram within a decade. What is needed to reduce the cost
of electrolysis in line with this goal?
Mr. Wipke. So a number of things. And thank you for the
question. First of all, today's electrolyzers have been made
for high efficiency because they are using expensive
electricity, and so they have more expensive materials, they're
operating 24/7. So one of the things that's going to change and
is changing is renewable power is coming down in cost, and that
means you can more opportunistically use the electrolyzer. But
that's also may be a different type of electrolyzer in terms of
materials. They won't be operating as much efficiency, maybe
not as important when you're turning it on and off and kind of
just capturing these extra puffs of wind and rays of sunlight
when they are available and extremely cheap. So the materials
are evolving and may be different, so we're working on a number
of things and catalysts, membranes, of course transport layers
that essentially allow this newer use of electrolyzers to be
more cost-effective and durable.
Chairman Bowman. Would anyone else like to briefly comment
on this? We only have a couple seconds left. Mr. Friedmann----
Dr. Friedmann. Yes----
Chairman Bowman. Dr. Friedmann, excuse me.
Dr. Friedmann. Thank you. Two quick things. First, the best
costs in the United States are on the order of $5. Average
costs are actually much higher because you need firm, reliable
electricity to get the job done. Getting that at an industrial
contract with clean electricity is closer to $9 a kilogram in
most parts of the country. I will say that in some parts of the
country like Oklahoma that is not the case. You have cheap,
abundant--clean electricity there, and it's much cheaper
locally. So be clear that the price is not 5 bucks in the
United States. The price is much higher in many jurisdictions.
The other thing that I'll say is that, like Mr. Wipke said,
you have to have high-capacity factors for these things today.
Fifty-five percent of the cost is the electricity cost, but 30
percent of the cost is the electrolyzer cost. We may be able to
make low-cost electrolyzers, that would be great, but if not,
the electrolyzer cost means you have to use these things a lot.
Otherwise, you're wasting money.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for indulging me.
We--I lost our power last night. My cell phone lost its charge,
and so we were a little behind the 8-ball this morning. What do
we do without cell phones? Maybe if we could get cell phones
more efficient with hydrogen, that would help us all. What do
you think?
But in this discussion one of the things that we--that I
actually have looked at was the fact that hydrogen R&D should
be a crosscutting initiative at DOE. We--I think we kind of all
take that for granted. One that leverages the expertise of all
applied energy offices. DOE currently supports four hydrogen
demonstration projects that will take place at commercial
nuclear power plants. One of the hydrogen hubs we've been
talking about will be required to use nuclear power. Obviously,
the benefits of using nuclear to produce hydrogen are
multifaceted, but let's just say several of them it's clear
it's safe that are clear is it's safe, it's reliable, and it is
a clean power source.
With that as a backdrop, my question is, Mr. Wipke, we'll
start with you. In your opinion, are advanced nuclear
technologies like those supported through DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy in a position--good position I might add--to
help overcome some of the R&D challenges associated with
scalable hydrogen production?
Mr. Wipke. Thank you for the question. And, first of all, I
am not a nuclear power expert. I'm more on the renewable power.
However, we work very closely with the Idaho National
Laboratory and in their, you know, ties with any--and they have
all the expertise in that area.
I do believe, however, that we need to take an all-of-the-
above approach, and nuclear is an outstanding baseload zero-
carbon source for making hydrogen. And there's actually
research being done on high-temperature electrolysis, and Idaho
and others are leading in that area where you essentially get
to use not only electricity but also the heat. And by elevating
the temperature of that reaction, the amount of electricity is
greatly reduced. So there's a lot of synergies by making
hydrogen from nuclear that I think we really need to take
advantage of.
Mr. Weber. Right. Thank you. Dr. Friedmann, your thoughts?
Dr. Friedmann. Nuclear has the advantage of being firm,
low-carbon electricity, period. Firm, low-carbon electricity is
a real asset in this arena. It is particularly valuable for the
existing fleet. We have a lot of nuclear plants that are being
curtailed at the level of 15 to 20 percent per year. Those
electrons could be used today to make zero-carbon hydrogen. And
if we can actually get novel reactors to have lower cost, then
in point of fact they could be very competitive for making low-
carbon clean ammonia and hydrogen.
Mr. Weber. Well, we--I'm glad to hear you're a proponent of
nuclear. We could have a discussion, notwithstanding Mr.
Wipke's comment that he's just an expert in renewables. We
would argue that in fact nuclear is indeed a renewable.
Mr. Wipke, let me come back to you. How is NREL
coordinating with other national labs like Idaho National
Laboratory, for example, to carry out this kind of crosscutting
work?
Mr. Wipke. Yes, so one of the major ways NREL and other
labs are collaborating is through various DOE consortia. So
there's one called H2NEW (Hydrogen from Next-generation
Electrolyzers of Water), which is focused on advanced water
splitting, and that includes the high temperature that we
talked about, as well as low temperature for PEM (polymer
electrolyte membrane) and alkaline. But there's also another
one called HydroGEN, which is basically longer-term research
and includes things like solar thermal chemical hydrogen
production and photoelectrochemical water splitting where you
directly shine sunlight on an advanced solar cell immersed in
liquid and you make hydrogen and oxygen.
So these are--I think it's really important to have a
portfolio and have a good spectrum from low-tech--low-
technology-readiness level to more applied. Otherwise, when you
deploy everything you have, the pipe ends up coming up dry. So
you've got to keep the pipeline full of innovation.
Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad to hear that. I think I made
myself clear, it's worth repeating, I strongly believe that in
order for a U.S. hydrogen economy to be competitive, we have to
support R&D and hydrogen production from a range of clean-
energy sources, keeping all the pathways on the table.
Furthermore, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Mr. Kimber
say that the pipeline system that we already have in place
should be a usable facility. It brings to mind for me the old
chicken-and-the-egg question. Do we want--I guess maybe it's a
parallel path. We want to make sure that pipelines can handle
that kind of product while we're doing the research on the
product. So we're going to need a little buy-in from some folks
across the country who aren't necessarily thrilled about
pipelines, but it's worth it in our trek to--as Ms.--is it
Fakhry--as she said, our trek to clean by 2050.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my final second.
Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to Chair Bowman and Ranking
Members Weber and Lucas for this hearing. Thank you to the
witnesses for your testimony and for bringing your expertise to
this conversation.
Many advocates of blue hydrogen, including the fossil fuel
industry, argue that generating hydrogen through steam methane
reforming with carbon capture is low emitting and clean. A
recent report from researchers at Stanford and Cornell
Universities examined blue hydrogen in heating and found that
greenhouse gas emissions from burning blue hydrogen is 60
percent higher than burning diesel for heat.
So, Ms. Fakhry, will you please outline the costs and
consequences both in public health and to our climate
associated with the possible expansion of blue hydrogen
generation and combustion? What is that--what would that mean?
Ms. Fakhry. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The study you
mentioned, the Harvard-Cornell study, demonstrates that, absent
regulations around the production of blue hydrogen, we could
end up in a worse place than fossil fuels. And that is a
chilling finding and absolutely underscored the critical need
of a very stringent and ambitious production standard around
all forms of hydrogen, in particular blue hydrogen, considering
the potential for upstream methane leakage, which, as we all
know, is a big challenge. We should absolutely do better at
measuring it and mitigating it. But there remains uncertainties
around the extent to which we can do that and the timeframe for
doing that. So a massive or large-scale investment in blue
hydrogen today would extend the present challenge of methane
leakage that we don't have a solution for just yet.
In addition to that, we cannot forget the public health
impacts associated with gas extraction and use, which render
blue hydrogen a resource that inherently poses more public
health risks than a cleaner resource like green hydrogen. And
considering the overburdened communities we have across the
country and they're deserving of clean air, we have to be very
careful with how we approach this resource.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
And we know green hydrogen has the potential to support
decarbonization in heavy industry, and we've talked about this
this morning, long distance, aviation, heavy-duty
transportation. But it also presents efficiency,
transportation, and cost challenges. So I'm encouraged by the
ongoing research, design, and development at DOE to overcome
these barriers. I was also excited to see research last year
from Oregon State University in my home State that demonstrated
that green hydrogen could be produced more efficiently and less
expensively with different catalysts.
So, Mr. Wipke, thank you for your work at NREL. What R&D
challenges must be overcome for green hydrogen to account for
significantly more than 1 percent of the total U.S. hydrogen
production?
Mr. Wipke. Thank you. So really the primary challenge here
is cost and then scale. And so, you know, the Hydrogen Shot
goal is focused on that, driving down the cost rapidly, and not
only through research, which is important, but also through
deployment. I mean, we've found again and again and again we do
not know what we don't know. And until you actually try doing
something at a meaningful scale, you don't know what isn't
going to work right. And part of it is actually the integration
with the other parts of the energy system. It's one thing to
have an electrolyzer you turn on and it runs for years. It's a
completely different thing to put it into a system where you've
got wind and solar coming up and down, you've got prices
spiking up and down, you have weather-related activities going
on where you might want to back off and provide more power.
So it's--you know, definitely driving down the cost is the
first thing, but then that integration is incredibly important,
and that's why we're focused on a lot of systems integration at
our Flatirons Campus and ESIF (Energy Systems Integration
Facility) through the advanced research for energy--integrated
energy systems areas.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you so much. And I don't have
another question. I just want to, before I yield back, thank
you, Dr. Friedmann, for mentioning the work force issues and
the need for human capital to help solve some of these
problems. As a Member of the Education and Labor Committee,
it's something that I'm very much aware of, as well as being a
Member of this Committee, that we absolutely need to both
expand and diversify the work force.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back my remaining
seconds.
Staff. Ranking Member Lucas is recognized.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Dr. de la Rubia, you describe a
number of Oklahoma's diverse resources and structural
advantages that uniquely position the State to be a future
leader in clean-energy economy. Oklahoma has already proven
itself to be a major net exporter of energy and a national
leader in producing natural gas and wind energy. So should it
come as no surprise when I say we're a State that's used to
delivering success to the U.S. energy sector.
So in your opinion, Doctor, how will this kind of
experience translate into continued success in delivering clean
hydrogen? When it comes to long-term adoption of hydrogen
energy technologies, how valuable is the regional cooperation
at the State level?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Thank you, Representative Lucas. Yes,
as you mentioned, you know, the State of Oklahoma has assets
across the entire lifecycle of the hydrogen economy from
production capabilities to end-use industries. And when put
together with our original partners in this part of the
country, you know, clearly, the combination of private-sector
companies, research universities, and State and local
communities, tribal nations, as I mentioned in my remarks,
bring together, you know, the entire set of assets necessary to
create a thriving hydrogen economy in the United States.
You know, I think regional partnerships are critical to
success, you know, because hydrogen ultimately to be
successful, to be a market-adopted technology, needs to be
spread throughout the Nation. And so we need to work regionally
and bring complementary assets to the table. I think it's
absolutely critical, and we're well-positioned to help to that
end, to help grow this economy in the United States.
Mr. Lucas. Continuing with you, Doctor, I'm also glad you
mentioned the need for hydrogen and fuel cell innovation
center, as well as a dedicated DOE Office of Science supported
fundamental research program. Support for DOE basic research
and research infrastructure is a top priority for the Science
Committee and this Congress. In order to ensure that we're
taking full advantage of DOE's research capacities, what steps
can we take to improve partnerships between research
universities like OU and the DOE national laboratories?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Thank you for that question. I, you
know, having spent the bulk of my career at a DOE national
laboratory, particularly as a Chief Research Officer
responsible for university partnerships and research at the
laboratory, I have some fairly strong views on this. I think
that, you know, when we're talking about the hydrogen economy
in particular, work force development, as has been mentioned
several times, is absolutely critical. Workforce development is
going to happen through our Nation's research universities. A
partnership between the research universities and the national
laboratories is absolutely critical, a strong partnership.
I think there are a lot of success stories between the DOE
national laboratories and universities, but I think there is
also a lot more that could be done. As an example, Sandia
National Laboratory a few years ago established a cooperative
agreement with a series--strategic series of universities
across the country in which they invested their own internal
laboratory-directed research and development funds, which are
authorized by Congress at every national lab, to partner with
universities and to fund research-directed universities. That
mechanism could be exploited a lot more strongly to create
these kinds of partnerships.
I will also say that it would be my recommendation that the
Department of Energy re-competes national laboratory management
and operating contracts. These are very large contracts across
all the 17 national laboratories. If those are re-competed, I
would recommend that we broaden the range of universities that
are involved in the management and operating contracts, that we
move away from single-university or two-university contracts to
multiregional universities that really embrace the entire
diversity of the Nation, including universities in export
States and other parts in the center of the country and not
only on the coasts. I think that would go a long way toward
enhancing the participation of the U.S. research universities
in the national laboratory enterprise and allowing the
laboratories to leverage the work force development efforts
happening at the universities.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you very much, Doctor. With that, I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Staff. Ms. Stevens is recognized.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you so much, and thank you to our
incredible Chair of this phenomenal Committee and to all of our
witnesses.
Clean hydrogen, we've got a company in southeastern
Michigan in my district. It's located in Novi called Noble Gas
Systems. They're a startup. You know, they're in this space of,
you know, kicking off in 2017. They've got some prototypes.
They're working on, you know, a handful of transportation
specialties as it relates to hydrogen.
And we've been talking a lot about these public-private
partnerships, particularly in the research front, and I know
that's what we're here to talk about, R&D. But I was just
wondering, you know, particularly from our panel about ways in
which the R&D leads to--you know, sometimes we call it
technology transfer--but support for small businesses
particularly like Noble Gas Systems in Michigan. Go ahead, Dr.
Friedmann.
Dr. Friedmann. Thank you so much. A couple of quick things.
For starters, as I believe you know, the Department of Energy
has small business grants, SBIRs (Small Business Innovation
Research), which actually help new companies get new
technologies to market. I am confident that there will be SBIR
money coming out of the Hydrogen EarthShot that is relevant.
For a company like Noble Gas that makes gas storage
systems, hydrogen storage is a really important topic. I can
imagine ways in which a company like that could in fact partner
into the solicitations around the hubs, for example. They could
also be sort of a pick-and-shovel company for a lot of projects
that are going forward around the country that would benefit,
say, from the Build Back Better provisions around the hydrogen
production tax credit (PTC). That would create a lot of
business for a company like Noble Gas.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, and--well, and, Dr. Friedmann, so I
don't--the recognition of your title Chief Carbon Wrangler, by
the way--and it's great to have you back at the Science
Committee. You know, we're very appreciative of all of your
input. And in your testimony you were talking about, you know,
the $8 million for a set of dedicated hydrogen hubs. You know,
this was in our Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. And so
maybe you can dig at that a little bit more for us, too,
because we're really proud that not only did we vote and pass
this legislation, but it got signed into law. It's going to
have some incredible ramifications for the U.S. economy.
Dr. Friedmann. It's historic legislation, and it will
position the country well. It's not sufficient for everything,
but it's a great opening ante. It has the deployment focus that
I talked about. Hubs are where the action is. You have to build
infrastructure, you have to create new supplies, you have to do
it in communities, so you have to engage the communities in a
way that is just and fair. And it creates wealth, it creates
jobs, it creates growth. It is also a place where you can
anchor innovation of all kinds. It is a way--a place that you
can anchor human capital development of all kinds.
I know that the Department of Energy is taking a
comprehensive view of these things. Secretary Granholm, Acting
Assistant Secretary Wilcox are doing a terrific job thinking
through these things. The request for information that just
came out will advise that process in a way that can help all
members and all stakeholders in these communities.
Ms. Stevens. That's great to highlight in this hearing by
the way, so for all the folks watching back home, an RFI is
out. We've got Wipke and Kimber who wanted to chime in, too,
and we want to get you guys in because I'm interested to hear.
Kimber, did you want to start?
Mr. Kimber. Yes. Yes. So we've got a partnership with a
company called Electric Hydrogen, which is very similar to the
one you're talking about. They're not based in your territory,
in your State, obviously, but----
Ms. Stevens. Well, we'd love to have you.
Mr. Kimber. They're looking for manufacturing. They're
actually right now----
Ms. Stevens. Yes, good, come to Michigan.
Mr. Kimber. We're very focused on job creation. But I think
that the key there is that, you know, private industry is set
up to do what needs to happen here, right? I mean, we've talked
a lot about government R&D, a lot about the DOE. I think that
there are folks like Breakthrough Capital, which is that Gates-
backed fund. We've now got these sort of billion-dollar call
it, you know, valley of death or, you know, they fill in what
used to be called the valley of death kind of venture funds,
right?
We need to create deployment pull-through, right? We need
to do things like potentially the hydrogen tax credit. We need
to make sure that we can, you know, not vilify the pipeline
companies and get this stuff blended into pipes safely. If we
can do those things, you'll see companies like ours, you know,
going into construction in 2026, 2027 on hundred--multi-hundred
megawatt, you know, half-a-gigawatt-type electrolyzer
facilities in the middle of the country in places like
Oklahoma. When you get that going, that's when you pull through
demand for the product, right?
And there's no lack of capital. You've got the R&D tech
that's already established in companies like what you're
talking about. You've got the Breakthrough Capital type money
that's very high-dollar venture. If they had an order from a
company like mine for $1 billion worth of electrolyzers, we'd
be off and running, right?
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Kimber. And so you really have to focus on how do we
get this stuff deployed at scale, not in toys for
transportation or other small--you know, small-scale projects.
Ms. Stevens. Well, I have a bill, Mr. Chairman--and this is
just as we wrap up--on the investment in venture capital
resources vis-a-vis the Department of Commerce particularly for
minority-owned businesses. So as we talk about access to those
investments, we want to make sure we're building on equity and
inclusion as well. So thank you, and I yield back. And we'll
keep this going.
Staff. Mr. Garcia is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
panelists, very interesting discussions. I want to just touch
on sort of the production side of the discussion. What are--we
have the estimates from a cost perspective anywhere from, you
know, what is it, $5 per kilogram all the way up to the higher
end. It sounds like the average maybe around $9. But from a
production perspective, what is the either estimated or
realized carbon footprint of a kilogram of hydrogen production?
And I'll defer to, I think, Dr. Wipke first, and we can go
around the horn if others have different estimates.
Mr. Wipke. Yes, so Argonne National Laboratory has a model
called GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy
Use in Technologies) where they look at the full lifecycle
emissions of hydrogen production. And I believe from natural
gas it's maybe 8 or 9 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram
of hydrogen. The clean hydrogen standard that's been put
forward is to say that it will be lower than 2 kilograms of
CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen.
So I think, you know, it's really important--we can talk
about colors of the rainbow, but at the end of the day, it's
objectively measuring the actual carbon emissions not just from
the source of the hydrogen production but all the way upstream.
And I agree that, you know, we need to fix and get a handle on
the methane leakage not only for making hydrogen but for all
the other things we do with natural gas as well from heating to
industrial heat, power production. That's not an issue just
reserved for hydrogen.
Mr. Garcia. And would anyone else like to discuss that
estimate or differ with it at all?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. If I may just mention real quickly,
you know, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
is in the process of launching a new mission to geostationary
orbit called GeoCarb that will hopefully be launched in 2024.
This very, very important mission is focused on measuring
greenhouse gas emissions across America daily with 5 kilometer
resolution. When the satellite with this infrared sensor is up
in orbit above the Earth, you know, it will be able to give us
very accurate flexes on the surface from the measurements made
from space on CO2, on oxygen, on methane, on solar-
reflected radiation. And so I just wanted to mention that
because I believe it's going to be a critical component as we
go forward of how to guarantee low emissions from these
processes, and as was just said, not only for hydrogen but for
all other emissions.
Dr. Friedmann. If I may add to this----
Mr. Garcia. Go ahead. Yes, sir.
Dr. Friedmann. Sorry. If I may add to this discussion,
there's a huge scholarship on the carbon footprint of hydrogen
production, so I--what I'm about to say is well-demonstrated.
As Dr. Wipke said, if you're making it from steam methane
reforming, it's about 8 or 9 kilograms per kilogram of
hydrogen. If you do 95 percent capture with an autothermal
reformer, that would be about 1 kilogram per kilogram, so you
can get very low. That requires very low upstream emissions.
The study that Representative Bonamici mentioned assumes 3.5
percent leakage. That is unreasonable. The United States
averages 2 percent. Best-in-class is .2 percent. But if you
want the low-carbon footprint, you really need that low
emissions. You need 0.2 percent leakage upstream if you want to
have a low-carbon footprint for fossil. But it can be very low.
For electricity, the footprint matters, too. If you use 100
percent renewable electricity, the footprint of hydrogen is
effectively zero if the full lifecycle, maybe, again, 1
kilogram per kilogram of CO2. However, if you have
renewable power firmed by the grid, it will limit 10 kilograms,
10 times more, worse than steam methane reforming on its own.
You must have very low carbon inputs of the electricity, 100
percent renewables or things like hydro and nuclear can do the
job.
Again, biomass, if you're using waste biomass, agricultural
waste, municipal solid waste effectively near zero at the
beginning. If you add carbon capture to that, you can get minus
14.
Mr. Garcia. That's where the subzero net comes in----
Dr. Friedmann. That's the subzero part, exactly.
Mr. Garcia. OK.
Dr. Friedmann. And there's companies in the United States
in California and Louisiana developing projects that look like
that.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you, Mr. Friedmann. And I see Dr.
Fakhry and Mr. Kimber. Doctor, go ahead.
Ms. Fakhry. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. A quick comment. I echo
much of what Dr. Friedmann just said, but I would urge the
Committee to not only think about carbon intensity, which is
absolutely critical since we're trying to decarbonize our
economy, but also impacts on public health and compatibility
with long-term goals. Yes, we can achieve low levels with low
hydrogen of carbon intensity with very strict regulations, but
it will never be zero. And we need to get to a net-zero
economy, so we need to look at the most compatible resources
with this net-zero goal, and green hydrogen offers a better
value proposition there. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. And, Mr. Kimber, we'll have to
come back to you if we have a second round, and I'm out of
time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman, I thank the witnesses,
a very informative hearing this morning.
One of the things that Mr. Garcia raised was the carbon
intensity and the target is 2 kilograms of CO2 per
equivalent kilogram of hydrogen. Mr. Wipke, is 2 kilograms
equivalent, is that an adequate threshold for carbon
production, or should we try for better?
Mr. Wipke. Well, so I think, you know, ultimately at the
end of the day driving toward zero or negative is what we're
trying to do, what we want to do. And I go back to what
happened in California in the 1990's where they came out with
zero emission vehicle regulations, and zero was the gold
standard. And then they realized that it was really hard,
especially at that time with expensive batteries that didn't
last very long, didn't give you the range, to get people to buy
the cars. And so they weren't having enough of the market
impact. So you started looking at hybrid vehicles, partial zero
emission vehicles, and you--basically, they started putting out
a portfolio of standards that drove toward that goal. And now
we do have zero emission vehicles that are market viable that
people are buying in droves. But to jump there right away and
say that's the only option, that's the gold standard, we'll do
nothing else I think really loses a market share potential.
Mr. McNerney. So the new research has shown that the stream
methane reforming, which is used to create blue and the gray
hydrogen, has higher emissions than previously thought. What--
Mr. Wipke, what kind of verification process should we be using
to ensure that the technology is qualified for the new
standards?
Mr. Wipke. So I'm not an expert in that area, and I think
Julio, Dr. Friedmann covered that quite well. But, you know, I
think there is government oversight and regulation for other
industries, and I think this just needs to be tightened up to
the point, you know, we did this for ozone, we've conquered
many other technical problems, and I don't see that this is,
you know, something we can't handle.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Friedmann, thank you for
coming to us from Livermore across the hills down the street.
In your testimony you discussed how more efficient--how more
efforts should be directed toward innovation on the end use of
hydrogen across the sectors rather than supply side
technologies. What are the particular sectors that are good
candidates for hydrogen utilization that have fallen behind?
Dr. Friedmann. Heavy industry is the top of my list for
that. Steel has been mentioned many times and remains a great
place to do this. We know that we can make steel today from
zero carbon hydrogen. The Swedes are doing it in a project
called HYBRIT (Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology).
It's worth saying that they have supercheap clean electricity,
which allows them to do this at almost competitive rates.
Beyond that, though, the chemical industry is the next best
bet. We could reduce the footprint of the chemical industry by
50 percent by using clean hydrogen both from feedstocks and
from heating. Low carbon heat is incredibly important. Right
now, we burn rocks to melt rocks. If your industrial process
starts by melting a rock, you're going to use a lot of heat.
Hydrogen can provide that. So that includes things like cement
making. We probably can't put hydrogen directly into cement,
but we can probably put ammonia or other zero-carbon fuels into
cement to run the kiln. That in itself, 37 percent of global
emissions come from making stuff. That's the biggest target.
After that----
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Friedmann [continuing]. Shipping, long-haul trucks, and
planes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Kimber, you indicated that a
massive scaling up of electrolyzers is needed. I spent my
career before coming to Congress developing wind turbine
manufacturing. And I understand that every time you double
production, you reduce production costs by 10 to 15 percent.
But the other problem with electrolysis is energy efficiency.
How do you propose to increase the conversion efficiency?
Mr. Kimber. Thank you for that. And I'm very aware of your
background. I'm very glad to have you on the Committee.
I think you're talking about a learning curve, right?
You're talking about with a doubling of the deployment of
something, you know, you cut the cost dramatically. I think
efficiency is something that has been sort of--a lot has been
made of it, right? I think when you talk about--people talk a
lot about kind of wheel-to-well--or well-to-wheel efficiency in
vehicles, right, where they're saying, you know, hydrogen would
be far less effective than, say, electric vehicles. So you see
a lot of these examples. There's no doubt that that's true. I
guess efficiency matters when a resource is really, really
expensive, right? So you don't hear a lot of people talking
about the efficiency of taking a drop of oil from, you know,
Nigeria and bringing it to your gas station in the form of
gasoline, right? The amount of petroleum used to do that is
quite high.
I think the thing that matters when it comes to efficiency
is really what the cost of the input electricity is, right? And
so I would rather have less-efficient electrolyzer put in the
field today at massive scales. Take a look at the first panels
that we put in in solar, right? Those were, you know, 200, 175
kilowatt panels, right? We're talking about 500--550 watt
panels at this point, right?
So I guess where I'm going is to say this--the cost of
solar and wind now is so cheap that the efficiency of these
first massive deployments can be quite low if necessary. And
the economics will still work because if you're using twice as
much of something that costs nothing, you know, you might--
you're better off deploying the low-efficiency electrolyzers,
pulling that volume down, getting them down the cost curve.
Mr. McNerney. Well, there's a lot that we could discuss
there, but I'm out of time, so I yield back.
Staff. Mr. Gimenez is recognized.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. A
question, I'm intrigued by fuel cells. And maybe Dr. Diaz de la
Rubia can answer the question. Fuel cells, the fuel cells
themselves, what is the durability of a fuel cell?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Thank you, sir. I'm going to pass on
that question. I'm not really an expert on fuel cells, so I
think I'll let Mr. Wipke answer that from NREL.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. Somebody can answer that question, the
durability----
Mr. Wipke. Yes.
Mr. Gimenez [continuing]. Of a fuel cell.
Mr. Wipke. Thank you, Representative Gimenez. So the
durability of fuel cells today in applications in light-duty
cars, for example, that are introduced in California, almost
10,000 cars out there, those are around 5,000-hour durability.
And of course in a car, you don't use it very much. It sits
most of the time parked, so that gets you about 100 to 150,000
miles. What's needed for heavy-duty trucks is four to five
times that getting up to 1 million miles durability. And so
inefficiency is also much more important in the heavy-duty
cycles because you're using it more, and the cost of the fuel
and the cost of the driver end up being much more important
than the capital cost upfront. So the Million Mile Fuel Cell
Truck consortium is really driving toward efficiency and high
durability so that the fuel cell trucks can get on the market
and use less fuel and be economic to compete head-to-head with
diesel when all the environmental concerns are taken into
account.
Mr. Gimenez. How does that relate to a battery, let's say,
in a car? What's the lifespan of a battery in a car?
Mr. Wipke. So I'm not an expert on batteries, but I believe
that they're--you know--they're, again, targeting that parity
with today's gasoline cars, which is, you know, 100,000 miles
plus. I have a Prius that got 180,000 miles out of my original
nickel metal hydride battery. I put a used one in there. I'm at
230,000 miles on it right now still getting almost 50 miles per
gallon. So there--I think batteries are able to do the job in
terms of durability in light duty. I think it heavy duty it
might be a challenge based on, you know, the duty cycle and the
duration of use.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. That's very interesting. Look, I'm an all-
of-the-above kind of energy guy, OK? I also believe in that
never let perfect be the enemy of good. And some people here
are trying to drive to perfection. I disagree with your
analysis that somehow electric cars are zero emission. There's
nothing that's zero emission because they get the electricity
from something that is producing CO2. Twenty-five
percent of all greenhouse gases produced in the United States
actually come from electricity production.
So I'm also very concerned about our drive toward electric
vehicles--not the drive toward electric vehicles, but one kind,
which is battery-operated. And the reason I'm concerned about
that is because the materials needed to build those batteries--
actually, the raw materials, actually, 80 percent of them are
controlled by China, all right, and that concerns me a lot.
I am really intrigued by fuel cells though, and somehow I
think we need to see if we can be a leader in fuel cell
technology for light vehicles and for trucks. They have certain
advantages. No. 1, they can be refueled very quickly just like
at a gas station. You don't have to wait 20, 30, 50 minutes to
recharge. And I can imagine when we have a whole bunch of
electric vehicles, the lines that we're going to have, people
trying to recharge their vehicles, especially when they're on
the road, you know, trying to get to--on a long trip are going
to be--I think they're going to be insurmountable, and that's
going to be a big problem.
And then what are we going to do with these batteries when
they do run out, and where are we going to store them? Because
apparently, you know, they're not a good thing to store. They
got toxic material and all that kind of stuff.
So, you know, I'm--is there a--is there an initiative to
better fuel cell technology and somehow incentivize fuel cell
technologies so that we become a leader in, you know, the fuel
cell technology and the cars and trucks driven by that versus,
you know, the batteries, which we seem to have picked as the
winner. And I think that we're going down the wrong path to be
honest with you. Anybody want to answer that one?
Staff. You've got 20 seconds.
Dr. Friedmann. Very briefly, the great State of New York
there's a company called Plug Power that makes fuel cells. They
do a great job. Those are used right now in forklifts, heavy-
duty applications, heavy-duty applications are the killer apps
for fuel cells, long-haul trucking in particular.
As a research focus, coatings, seals, corrosion, like use-
inspired, deployment-inspired research will really help that.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. Thank you very much, and I guess my time
is up. I yield back.
Staff. Mr. Norcross is recognized.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you to the Chairman, and I appreciate
holding the hearing on this. It's fascinating.
We've primed the pump, the $8 billion that's going in here
to the R&D I think is a very good move. My question is--and
I've heard from several of you about private capital, supply
and demand. And we certainly have had that conversation of how
we produce hydrogen. What I am curious about more to do with
the standards that we are setting up. If you ask private
industry, you know, it's real clear what they do in terms of
trying to make a profit. We're more looking at this from the
beginning to the end, and that's a relative spot of carbon
reduction. What are we going to include in that? We talk about
the electricity being generated, 100 percent renewable. Well,
we feed off a grid, so it is a mixed bag no matter what we look
at. We primed the pump, and then we say that industry--that
money is going to follow. How do we determine what standards?
Is it simply the cost, or is it the carbon reduction? If it's
carbon reduction, where do we start, and where do we stop in
terms of that calculation? And I want to open that up to all
the panel.
Ms. Fakhry. I'd be happy to start, Mr. Norcross, a
critically important question. The DOE has a big role to play
here. First, the infrastructure bill, it needs to come up with
the standards in the next few months. The first step is to
establish a rigorous boundary for which emissions to take into
account. And this at a minimum should include emissions arising
at the site of production and upstream, considering those can
be very substantial. This boundary should be subject to
periodic revisions and potentially expanded as emissions from
hydrogen transport, for instance, become clearer, and we should
do that.
The second step is to establish a limit that is low enough
on those emissions to ensure that we're incentivizing the
cleanest sources and sources that are the most in line with our
long-term goals. Hydrogen generation assets are long-lived, 20,
30, 40 years in some cases. We need to have a long--medium and
long-term view incenting those standards to orient the market
in the right direction so as not to be stuck by assets that may
be stranded in 10 years because they are highly emitting. So
DOE has a big role to play and a framework for those
calculations, and the limit will be absolutely critical for you
in the market.
Mr. Norcross. So just to followup on this, we have the
profit motive, which is what makes us a great nation, capital.
How do we determine and give certainty to those investors that
you say in 5 years we renew what the standards are? Well, that
changes a whole calculation for an investment. And at the end
of the time that we go into it, it's going to determine whether
the money actually follows this.
So let me shift to distribution of the hydrogen. And we're
talking about pipelines. Has that--developments of changing
from a natural gas to hydrogen is--are we further down the line
that we can go back and forth? Because right now, pipelines, as
you mentioned, are a big problem. Well, if we say we're going
to switch these over to hydrogen, that changes a perspective.
Is it either/or or both in the use of the pipelines?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Sir, if I may, I'd like to relate an
experience I had in Germany recently. I traveled to Germany
with a delegation to visit companies involved in the hydrogen
economy and learned what was going on with the E.U. and
Germany. And there we learned from the largest pipeline company
in Germany, OEG, that their plan is to have 80 percent blends
to 100 percent by 2050 of hydrogen in all their pipeline
infrastructure. Their plan is zero natural gas coming out of
pipelines by 2050. It all will be hydrogen, and it will be on
the existing pipeline infrastructure. They believe, the German
engineers believe that it is possible, absolutely--and they are
demonstrating it--to get 80 percent hydrogen into a natural gas
pipeline. Now, the compressors, there are pieces of the
pipeline that needs to be--that need to be changed, but they
are moving ahead very, very aggressively.
In the delegation was one of the largest pipeline companies
in the United States, Williams, the Williams Company in
Oklahoma. They believe that at this point the only 3 percent
hydrogen can be blended into the natural gas pipelines. And so
there's a big disconnect between what is happening in Germany
right now or in the E.U. and what we believe to be possible
here in the United States. I think there's a lot--there are a
lot of open questions when it comes to the performance of the
current pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen, very, very
important topic.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I'm out of time, and I yield back.
Staff. Mr. Obernolte is recognized.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
the witnesses. This has been a really fascinating hearing.
Mr. Wipke, I wanted to ask you a question about some of the
costing figures that you were citing when we were talking about
the DOE's Hydrogen Shot program. You know, it's been kind of a
focus of this hearing, the distinction between development and
deployment. And, you know, we can look at the experience that
we've had deploying electric vehicle technology as kind of, you
know, the canary in the coal mine of how difficult it's going
to be to get hydrogen technology deployed. You know, it's one
thing to develop it, but deploying it requires us to meet a lot
of commercial conditions that, you know, aren't present in the
laboratory.
So, you know, particularly for industries where hydrogen is
really our best method of decarbonization like aviation,
maritime shipping, long-haul trucking, you mentioned that the
Hydrogen Shot program is geared toward getting the cost of
hydrogen down below $1 per kilogram. What would the cost per
kilogram have to be to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels in
those industries? Because those industries are obviously very
cost-sensitive, and we're not going to succeed in deployment
until we achieve some kind of cost parity. So has that research
been done?
Mr. Wipke. Yes. So today's hydrogen from natural gas is
around $1.50 to $2 per kilogram of hydrogen, you know, with no
carbon capture or storage. So that was kind of--for a while,
that was our bogey for research was to hit $2 per kilogram of
hydrogen. And what we've done with the Hydrogen Shot initiative
is we actually lowered that to be lower than natural gas. It is
absolutely challenging and a worthy endeavor to drive toward
that. And even if we get to just parity with natural-gas-based
hydrogen with no, you know, capture of the CO2, I
think we will be competitive in a lot of industries. And in
fact heavy-duty trucking, because of the way they operate and
the high energy throughput and the need to get toward not only
low carbon but also local air quality requirements, I think
hydrogen will be superior.
So we're going to drive toward $1, and if we along the way,
you know, pass through different sectors where it becomes
competitive, those markets will grab it, especially the price-
sensitive ones in industry where they make decisions based on
economics.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. Yes. So I'm asking you a slightly
different question though. I mean, if you take something like
maritime shipping as an example, you know, they use those high
sulfur heavy fuels for a reason, because it's the cheapest way
of getting, you know, a massive ship from point A to point B.
At what price point would hydrogen have to be to be cost-
competitive with fuels like that?
Mr. Wipke. I mean, whatever the cost is of bunker fuel for
a ship. You know, if they need to be cost-competitive with
that, that would be extremely low. You know, I think one of the
big opportunities is countries like Australia and others who
have a lot of land and renewables to actually make hydrogen as
an export. And that really enables, you know, new applications
like green and exporting hydrogen across the ocean. But I don't
think it will necessarily be done just based on economics at
that scale. They will be exporting it to countries that really
care about carbon and are willing to pay more of a price
premium. So I don't think you can just say we need to get to
price parity in every market, you know, today or we don't even
start.
Mr. Obernolte. No, no, I understand. But--and I don't think
anyone would argue we have to get to price parity. But if you
look at what we've gone through with renewable electricity
generation, you know, you can see this, you know, tug of--
this--you know, that these ideas are in tension, wanting to
deploy low-carbon technology and wanting to protect consumers
from pricing increases, right?
So I'm just wondering--maybe Dr. de la Rubia, maybe you
have the answer to this question. So has anyone done the math
about if we get down to $1 per kilogram of hydrogen, you know,
how close that is to being--to having price parity with fossil
fuels?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Look, I mean, my--in my view it's--
and it has been said before that, you know, different markets
are going to adopt hydrogen at different rates. I want to--I
don't have a concrete answer to your question, but I want to
use an example, again, from my trip to Germany back in
November. We were talking about green steel a lot, and it has
been brought up here. And the real question from the market
sector companies was who is going to adopt green steel? Because
it's going to cost a lot more than, you know, it does to make
steel today. And the answer with green hydrogen coming from
Sweden was Mercedes-Benz. And Mercedes-Benz is interested in
adopting green steel because they have demand from customers
for S-class vehicles where, you know, if you're paying 120,000
or $140,000, it probably doesn't matter that much.
Mr. Obernolte. OK.
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. And so there is a demand sector,
right, but it's very small. So introducing--even if the
efficiencies are not 100 percent or the costs are not parity
yet, introducing this technologies now for a specific possibly
high-end market, OK, like an S500 Mercedes-Benz is where the
industry is going, is where the market is going to start
adopting hydrogen. So----
Mr. Obernolte. All right. Yes, we're out of time here, but
I think it's a fascinating topic. But my point is we ought to
know the answer, right? Because industries like maritime
shipping and aviation where hydrogen is the most promising new
technology for decarbonization, you know, are very price-
sensitive. And, you know, we're never going to get widescale
adoption until we get somewhere close to price parity. And so
we know--I was just trying to compare the two. You know what,
but thanks very much, and thanks for the fascinating hearing. I
really enjoyed it. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I really appreciate this hearing.
One of the things that I love about this Committee is that you
all have the pleasure of testifying before the only Committee
in Congress that deals with nonnegotiable laws, you know, mass
conservation, energy conservation. It's a perk of this
Committee.
I want to--I mention that because I want to start--and I
really appreciate Mr. Friedmann's comments about how important
some of the industrial uses of hydrogen are. And at the same
time I will tell you that I'm really concerned that we have--we
don't prioritize our research budgets always in the ways that
have the most use.
And so, Mr. Wipke, I want to go through just a couple just
straight math issues I'm hoping we can answer quick because I
want to get to sort of a meaty policy question at the end for
everybody's input. Twenty years ago, the state-of-the-art in
energy storage for electricity was lead acid batteries, and the
state-of-the-art for hydrogen was compressed hydrogen tanks.
Lead acid batteries were, you know--and I'm going back--some of
these numbers are old--you know, 40 watt hours per kilogram,
maybe 80 watt hours per liter. State-of-the-art for batteries
is now lithium-ion. It's almost a 10fold improvement, you know,
touching up close to 300 watt hours per liter, you know, close
to 700--or, I'm sorry, 700 watt hours per liter and close to
300 watt hours per kilogram. So that's a 10fold improvement,
which is why we can now talk about vehicles with long ranges.
And so as an energy carrier, whether we're going to use
electricity or hydrogen as an energy carrier, we've seen these
huge advances in the mass and energy density. Over the last 20
years, has there been any meaningful advance in the energy or
mass density of hydrogen storage technology such as we've seen
for electricity? And I'm not criticizing the research. I'm just
trying to understand, has there been any change in those
numbers?
Mr. Wipke. Yes, so for decades the goal of the hydrogen
storage research was onboard storage for vehicles, for cars
specifically, so very tight requirements. Essentially what was
needed for a car has been met. You can store 6 kilograms on
board in compressed hydrogen tanks. It does the job. It also
does the job for heavy-duty trucks today. However, the research
hasn't stopped, and I think, you know----
Mr. Casten. I'm sorry to cut you off because I do want to
get to my question.
Mr. Wipke. Yes.
Mr. Casten. I'm just asking like state-of-the-art was
compressed in hydrogen, you know, maybe liquefied 20 years ago.
Do we have new technologies that have a greater--I'm not
questioning the goals. I'm saying has the technology changed
much in the 20 years as far as our ability to get more watt
hours into less mass, less volume?
Mr. Wipke. I think the goal posts aren't necessarily there
for onboard storage. We don't need to do it to do it with the
cars, right?
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Wipke. We've gotten where we need to.
Mr. Casten. Well, let me--and, again, I'm not just talking
about vehicles. I'm saying hydrogen as an energy carrier is
tied to that storage question. From an efficiency perspective,
I take issue with Mr. Kimber's comment that efficiency doesn't
matter. It does matter. If we can, you know, generate solar
power with half as much acreage, that's a big deal even though
the sun is free.
Twenty years ago, you know, the state-of-the-art for
conversion, you know, round-trip efficiency on a battery 70, 80
percent, round-trip efficiency electrolyzer to storage to a
fuel cell, you know, maybe 30 percent, more if we're going to
use liquefaction. I don't think either of those numbers have
meaningfully changed in 20 years, so we're still at 70 to 80
percent round-trip efficiency on electric, 30 percent--Mr.
Wipke, do I have--has there been anything that's really changed
in your view of sort of those round-trip efficiency numbers?
Mr. Wipke. Yes, so I think some things have changed
actually relates to storage, so stationary storage of hydrogen
if you're using compressed tanks, you've got to compress it.
There's actually metal hydride storage, and we're going to be
demonstrating that at NREL at a scale of 525 kilograms of
hydrogen where you store it at a much lower pressure. You can
actually remove the compressor from that efficiency chain. So--
--
Mr. Casten. OK. And I'm sorry to keep cutting you off, but
even if you--even if the storage was free, you're still looking
at a, you know, 70, 80 percent electrolyzer efficiency and a 40
percent fuel cell efficiency, so it's--your--from a cycle
perspective, that green hydrogen has an efficiency--now--and I
want to get to one last point and then get to my policy
question for all of you. This one I think is much less
controversial.
Mr. Wipke, is there more carbon per mass in a cubic meter
of CO2 or a cubic meter of crude oil?
Mr. Wipke. I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry.
Mr. Casten. Anybody want to chime in? It's a simple
question. There's a lot more carbon in a cubic meter of crude
oil than CO2.
Dr. Friedmann. Yes, there is.
Mr. Casten. I say that because we cannot do EOR (enhanced
oil recovery). If we're pumping CO2 under the ground
to release oil, we're increasing CO2 emissions, so
we've got to do green hydrogen. So all of my questions are not
to criticize green hydrogen. But my question on all of this is
that if, as an energy carrier, we're not making big advances in
efficiency, we're not making big--but electricity has really
surged ahead, then are we doing enough to focus on the
industrial uses of hydrogen that Mr. Friedmann mentioned, and
do we have any sort of theoretically plausible way, gamechanger
for hydrogen storage as we've seen for electricity? Because if
we don't, then I think we really need to rethink how our
research budgets are prioritized.
And I realize I'm out of time, but if--but that was the
question I wanted to get to, and you all are the experts. I'd
love to know, are we doing enough, and are we prioritizing in
the right areas? Because it feels to me like the energy carrier
focus has gotten all the attention, but the real opportunities
are in the less sexy fields like making steel and making
cement, thermal use, as Dr. Friedmann was talking about.
And I realize I'm out of time unless the Chairman will
afford someone the time to respond.
Chairman Bowman. Yes, 15 seconds each if y'all can.
Mr. Wipke. Yes.
Dr. Friedmann. All right. Go ahead----
Ms. Fakhry. I just want to strongly agree with you, Mr.
Casten.
Mr. Kimber. Yes, Congressman, I think, you know, my
efficiency argument was more around, you know, the fact the
solar efficiency is up over 30 percent since we started
deploying it, you know, in my business, 10, 15 years ago. It
takes deployment to reach those increases in efficiency. You
can't do it in a lab. You're not just going to find 5 years
from now that we have a 30 percent increase in efficiency in
the lab. You've got to put a lot of stuff in the field.
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. So, Congressman, I would say that
your storage question is tied to the distributed generation of
hydrogen as well. If we're able to distribute the generation
and store it locally, OK, there are companies right now in the
private sector who are filing patents with new technologies for
storing hydrogen underground in cylinders, very efficient,
effective methods for storage, demonstrating new materials and
coatings to do that safely. And if you coupled your storage
question not for transportation but for other industrial uses--
with local generation, right, then I think we can really make a
lot of progress.
Dr. Friedmann. Last but not least? You should definitely
focus on the unsexy stuff. That's where the money is, that's
where the work is, 100 percent. That includes infrastructure
refurbishing, that includes storage, that includes industrial
use, that includes tugboats and ammonia, like fertilizer
production. All that stuff is a great place to put some
research money.
Mr. Casten. Well, thank you all, and I--that sounds like
the line I used it to convince my wife to marry me. I yield
back.
Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. And this has been so
interesting.
I want to--I'm really--I want to followup a little bit on
some of the things that Congressman Casten and Congressman
Norcross have brought up. So I just want to be clear. You're
not talking about hydrogen replacing a natural gas peaker
plant, for example. You're talking about hydrogen being used in
much more localized areas, not necessarily as part of a
utilities fleet. Can somebody elaborate on that or is the goal
to have hydrogen replace a peaker plant?
Mr. Kimber. As the person who builds power plants here,
Congresswoman, I'd like to speak to that. I've spent my entire
career in the power sector, including the gas-fired sector.
Power to gas to power is the last place we should put hydrogen
just to be clear. It could potentially be used to fill in a
little bit when we get to sort of like that last
decarbonization of the grid. It could be used for firming and
some of that stuff. I don't think we should be deploying a
bunch of new hydrogen-focused turbines. There are a lot of
turbines out there already that could run increasingly higher
degrees of hydrogen that are, you know, practically useless for
economic purposes right now going forward, so we should run
those into the ground. So, you know, I think that is really the
key.
I think what I would say is I totally agree with
Congressman Casten that we should focus on those unsexy places,
ammonia production and refining. These are--you know, right
there, that's a massive decarbonization lever, as well as
steel, although that's a little bit harder to do for a number
of reasons.
I do think though--and I want just really highlight this.
I've been trying to say this all along, that pipelines matter.
And I'll tell you why. I'm not suggesting that we're going to
get it to the end user. I don't want to burn hydrogen in my
stove. I do want to put it in pipelines up to, call it, 10, 20
percent because in the near term I can park a massive wind and
solar facility next to a pipeline in Oklahoma, and I can
produce a huge amount of hydrogen, right? If--it allows us to
scale it at first. When it reaches a certain concentration in
those pipes, people will begin to build ammonia facilities next
to my plant in Oklahoma. People will begin to build hydrogen-
only pipelines. But just like the power grid, you've got to put
on the grid first and then people will realize that there's a
market for it.
Ms. Ross. OK. So--and I see other people want to answer,
but I want to get this next question in, and then if people
want to respond to both. So then my next question is, you know,
really getting the approval to be in that pipeline. And I
represented renewable natural gas companies, and they kept
getting booted out of the pipeline because of PHMSA (Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) and because of
all of these other things. And so, you know, I assume you don't
have the money to pay for that infrastructure yourselves and
you're going to have to work with the natural gas companies.
And so, you know, how's that going to--how is that going to
work, and how can we help? Because there's lots of people who
want to use built infrastructure, and sharing it and providing
safety is a tricky business.
Mr. Kimber. And I don't want to dominate this, but I--if
anybody else was to go, but I--we're in a lot of conversations
with FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and PHMSA
right now. We--we're out looking for--we have--we are
entertaining investments in our company from pipeline
companies. The pipeline companies want to be involved. They
want to do this. They want to carry hydrogen. It's not like
landfill gas where there's a lot of other quality issues with
impurities and other things like that. The blending of hydrogen
is a little bit, from a technical perspective, cleaner to them.
They also see it as a much more scalable industry that they can
see a real long-term business in as opposed to landfill gas,
which is quite small.
Ms. Ross. OK. Mr. Chairman, if it's OK if the other folks
can respond? Thank you.
Dr. Friedmann. Just very briefly if I may, if your--first
of all, if you're going to replace a natural gas peaker, if
you're going to use hydrogen in that service, you should be
using a fuel cell so you don't burn anything. Start with that.
That is better all around.
I have recommended to this Committee and other Committees
in the past, testimony, we need a census of national pipelines,
especially in the distribution networks but also transportation
networks. We don't know the metallurgy, we don't know the
pressure ratings, we don't know the throughput, we don't know
the materials, we don't know the vintage. And in the case of
distribution, we don't know the location. It would be great to
have a census of pipelines so we could answer these questions
definitively.
Ms. Ross. Right. And, Mr. Chairman--I mean, Ms. Fakhry--
yes.
Ms. Fakhry. Great, thank you, Ms. Ross. Quickly, I would
like to add one more note of caution around this conversation
of retrofitting existing pipelines. I know Mr. Kimber's company
is doing some great stuff, but there is a risk here that we
start putting in a lot of money in existing infrastructure,
retrofitting it, extending its lifeline, and not using it or
not using it fully. So I do want to make sure that we have a
long-term vision for why we would be retrofitting or putting
money into a system that we need to start thinking about
pruning. So that is a note of caution I hope we always have
hover over retrofit conversations.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much. I really appreciate you all
appearing today.
I was wondering if our power plant expert in the last--you
were talking about being able to generate hydrogen out of solar
and wind farm and get some of it onto the system. Could we kind
of pick up there where you left off? Because I think the point
that our last witness just made about sort of retrofitting and
looking at the entire system as a whole is a good note of
caution. But I am familiar with research that shows we could
selectively retrofit or improve existing parts of our pipeline
infrastructure to begin allowing the blending of hydrogen into
the natural gas system. And I was just wondering if that's
where you were going with that.
Mr. Kimber. That's exactly where I'm going with it. There
are many of these pipeline systems right now. I will tell you
the reason we first started talking to them is because most of
them are trying to electrify their compression to begin with,
so most of them are actually moving to upgrade their compressor
systems, and that includes a lot of their--you know, a lot of
their--you know, balance of pipe if you will as well. So
they're already putting money into these systems.
In addition to that, a lot of these systems could be
isolated, so I'm not for a second suggesting you put it into a
bunch of pipes that have a lot of, you know, local distribution
downstream to people's stoves. But there are a lot of pipes
that have, you know, potentially only an industrial use
downstream or----
Mr. Lamb. Right.
Mr. Kimber [continuing]. Things of that nature. So--and I
want to be clear with people that even fractional percentages
in some of these pipes is gigawatts of electrolyzer capacity.
If we put that amount of capacity in the ground in the next 5
years, we are going to be sitting here with electrolyzers at
half the price of what they are today. Our cost forecast with
folks like Electric Hydrogen, which is run by the last two CTOs
(Chief Technical Officers) of First Solar, one of the most
successful solar companies, and ourselves, we own some of the
largest solar facilities in the country, show us getting well
below $5. So I think that, you know, what--there are price
points people are talking about right now that I think industry
has maybe even a more aggressive view on where those can go.
Mr. Lamb. So it--am I right then to interpret this to say
that the economics already work if we had--if we used some of
the hydrogen programs in place basically to take care of the
pipeline piece of it in a selective way? Is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Kimber. They work in certain applications, and so
that's----
Mr. Lamb. Yes.
Mr. Kimber [continuing]. Where I'm going. They work--well,
first of all, the hydrogen PTC would accelerate things
tremendously, so, you know, we absolutely, you know, need to
have that. I think in lieu of that we could find premium
buyers--if we could combine premium buyers with the lowest cost
to generate, so you go to Oklahoma, you put it in a pipeline or
you put it over the fence into one of the largest ammonia
plants in the country, these are the places where we can get to
multi-hundred megawatt scale in a single application and drive
down that cost. You then find the buyer for that ammonia or
the--you know, the green hydrogen that's going in the pipe that
is--has the highest willingness to pay.
Mr. Lamb. Right.
Mr. Kimber. And we can talk a little bit more about that,
too, because we really need to borrow from what the DOE has
done in renewable energy credits, the environmental attributes
in electricity. We need DOE to create a similar renewable
energy credit for hydrogen so that it is a tradable attribute,
right? That has to happen because if it's not, when you put it
in the pipe or you give it to the ammonia guy, they have to
want the green hydrogen. We don't need that. If I could just--
--
Mr. Lamb. Right.
Mr. Kimber [continuing]. Sell hydrogen to an ammonia plant
that doesn't care if it's green and then sell the greenness of
that to another ammonia plant down on the Gulf Coast or who has
a customer that's willing to pay for green ammonia, that's what
I need. That's what made electric--green electricity so
successful in this country.
Mr. Lamb. Got it. And, Dr. Friedmann, I wanted to ask
because I know you were connected to Columbia's Center on
Energy Policy. That was where the information I'm aware of
about the viability of beginning to retrofit and fix a lot of
our existing gas pipeline networks to make it ready for
increasing levels of hydrogen that would occur over time. Are
you familiar with that, and do you see that as kind of a viable
national project for us to try to, you know, preserve and
improve parts of this pipeline network?
Dr. Friedmann. The short answer is yes. The long answer is
there's a lot of hair on that. The--some pipelines can only
take 5 percent hydrogen blending. Some can take 20 percent
hydrogen blending.
Mr. Lamb. And that's why you're saying we need a census
basically to know what is what?
Dr. Friedmann. Right. It is also the case that leakage is a
real risk. You add hydrogen to a pipeline, it has a leakage
risk, and that cannot only be a safety risk also a climate
risk. We need to get our hands around that, and in fact work
that we're doing at Columbia with EDF (Environmental Defense
Fund) is trying to get a better handle on what that--those
numbers actually look like.
Mr. Lamb. Great. Well, I'm out of time. Mr. Chairman, thank
you very much. And to all the witnesses, thanks again for
appearing. Goodbye.
Staff. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Oh, thank you. And thank you, Chairman Bowman,
for holding this important hearing, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today, very informative.
Clean hydrogen can play an important role in our Nation's
clean-energy future. In particular, hydrogen may prove
essential to decarbonizing difficult-to-abate sectors such as
heavy-duty transportation and chemical and metals production.
To address the important role hydrogen will play in a clean-
energy economy, Congress has invested billions of dollars for
R&D and deployment through the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, and the Biden Administration is taking great steps to
advance U.S. leadership on clean hydrogen.
But it's not just the Federal Government. My home State of
New York has also made a commitment to become a major hub for
green hydrogen. Our State has the infrastructure and the
expertise to make this a reality. The capital region's own Plug
Power, which was earlier mentioned, is a global leader in the
emerging green hydrogen market, and NYSERDA (New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority) continues to invest
in processes that will enable a safe, equitable, green hydrogen
economy. So I'm excited to see the enthusiasm for clean
hydrogen growing, but our work isn't done. Just from the broad
range of topics covered in this hearing, you can see the
exciting research going on. We must continue to invest in clean
hydrogen R&D to continue reducing cost and making it a widely
available option for numerous sectors and uses. So, as we make
this energy transition, we need to learn from our past mistakes
and make certain that the clean-energy economy is good for
everyone, especially our most vulnerable neighbors.
So, Ms. Fakhry, what should we be thinking about in the R&D
space to ensure that clean hydrogen production brings benefits
to surrounding communities and does not increase pollution?
Ms. Fakhry. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, critically important
question. I would start by saying NRDC does not speak for
impacted communities, and their perspectives and voices should
be heard.
I cannot fully answer this question without the
perspectives of those impacted communities, and I would thereby
strongly recommend that DOE engage in direct outreach to those
communities in developing its own hydrogen work further to
ensure their perspectives and concerns are reflected.
However, for now, to respond to your question, two
critically important guiding principles have to hover over this
conversation. One is we have to strongly prioritize those
projects that have no public health implications. That is
critical, and DOE has to make sure those are prioritized. The
second piece is that projects have to lower local air
pollution, not just keep it as such, has to demonstrate a
lowering of local air pollution and be subject to early and
proactive engagement with those communities.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act created a clean hydrogen manufacturing and recycling
program, among other investments in R&D at DOE. So, Mr. Kimber,
how can R&D for clean hydrogen production and recycling help
support domestic supply chain capabilities?
Mr. Kimber. I'm not entirely sure that I'm qualified, but
I'll take a quick stab. I think, you know, the renewable
industry in general, whether it be batteries or solar or, you
know, electrolyzers are no different. We build things with
equipment that oftentimes has rare metals and other inputs, so
I think that, you know, R&D and recycling is critically
important. I actually think doing it now is very farsighted. It
gets ahead of the problem where I think, you know, in solar,
for instance, we got caught a little bit flat-footed and are,
you know, playing catch-up on what it takes to recycle a lot of
the panels, wind turbine blades, things like that. You know, so
I think that that can be a critical part of not only our
environmental responsibility as an industry but also
potentially reusing those elements so that we're less reliant,
as one of the Members said, on China and other, you know, chief
geopolitical rivals for those goods.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Mr. Wipke, what additional
innovations can help in reducing the cost of electrolysis and
clean hydrogen produced using this technology?
Mr. Wipke. Thank you. So, yes, we're working on a lot of
new materials to support that through the various consortia I
mentioned earlier. I think it's also important to look at this
scale, and manufacturing and Plug Power has been a great
example of putting money into actually getting to large-scale
production of things. And that is absolutely critical. I think
things like large-scale deployments and demonstrations help
that. But ultimately at the end of the day the private sector
investment is 6 to 10 times more than government investment,
and that is what really drives things quickly. That's what
drove it in solar and wind and batteries. And I think we are
very close to being to the point where the investors and the
private sector are just going to take this and run, and the
government role will be on the research and keeping that
pipeline feeding toward them with better innovations.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield
back. Thank you.
Staff. Dr. Foster is recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Many of the advanced zero-carbon power technologies end up
producing energy that shows up ultimately as process heat
usually in the range of 600 to 900 degrees C, and that's true
whether you're a believer in fusion energy or solar thermal or
advanced nuclear or even fast reactors or accelerator-driven
systems that exploit the huge amount of energy remaining in the
spent nuclear fuel that's piling up around the country.
In all cases, these ultimately produce high-temperature
process heat. And so your options for using this process heat
are either to, first, convert it to electricity with
turbomachinery and generators and so one and then use that
electricity and electrolyzers to get hydrogen where maybe
you'll be lucky to get to a combined efficiency of maybe 30
percent, or with direct thermochemical processes where you
might get to 50 percent efficiency and potentially much lower
capital costs.
So now we're about to spend several billion dollars on
hydrogen hubs, one of which is specified to use nuclear energy.
So my question is what are the merits of having this nuclear
hydrogen hub be based on standard technologies, say, putting
electrolyzers in an existing nuclear plant or on direct
thermochemical production of hydrogen or ammonia or methanol or
other hydrogen carriers? And if you could answer this both from
the point of view of the likelihood of hitting the $1 per
kilogram goal and of learning something new and useful. So I
guess, Dr. Friedmann, since you mentioned the sulfur iodide
cycle, I'll start with you.
Dr. Friedmann. Sure. And I look forward to Dr. Diaz de la
Rubia's comments. He's also a really deep nuclear expert. The
sulfur iodine cycle is still promising. It's still largely
unbaked. There just hasn't been enough work yet to really show
that it can be done. It really does require high temperatures,
more like 850 or 900 degrees Celsius to work. That's a very
high temperature novel reactor. We don't have a lot of those
out there. So it remains promising, remains largely unexplored.
That makes it a great focus for something like a pilot or a
demonstration. It makes it a poor choice for hub. The hubs
really require industrial production to deliver to customers of
all kinds. There's just a little too much technical risk in the
sulfur iodine cycle.
I would say that we have not thought at all--from a
research perspective, we have really not thought at all about
how to use waste heat to help electrolyzers. That's a really
good thing to do actually. Many electrolyzers must run at high
temperatures, so you can use some of that waste heat in a
productive way. That sort of heat integration efficiency gain
work largely undone. Idaho and NREL have done a little bit of
good work on this actually that I would like to see more of
that.
Mr. Foster. Yes. It's my understanding that the Japanese do
have a pilot plant on sulfur iodide. Yes, Dr. de la Rubia?
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. Well, thank you, Congressman. I don't
have much to add to what Julio just said. I would also--I would
only point out that, I mean, one would hope that we're able to
accelerate the regulatory process to advance small modular
nuclear reactors that operate at high temperatures, as you
mentioned. I think we're going to need that industry to grow
here in the United States, not only overseas, which is where,
unfortunately, we're seeing most of the action right now even
from American companies licensing overseas and planning to
commercialize overseas. I would like to see that industry be
brought back or ensured that it stays here in the United
States, that all these innovations that we created, you know,
through the decades stays here because I think it would be very
important to the hydrogen economy as well.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Well, I thought it was interesting that
one of the advanced reactor design that we are now prototyping
has molten salt heat storage and tanks, which could really
affect the economics. And, you know, it strikes me there's a
possibility to do some R&D simply by using that as a source of
process heat. And then when there's surplus generating
capacity, be able to divert some of the power to, for example,
making hydrogen or related compounds.
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. No doubt about it, sir. That--I will
also say, as you mentioned, believers in fusion, I am a very,
very strong believer in fusion energy. The recent advances that
we have seen coming out of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, coming out of the JET (Joint European Torus)
tokamak in the United Kingdom really point a way toward, you
know, the fact that we're finally getting to the place where
the science is coming through. And I think we also need to
think about how fusion energy may play a role in our future
energy economy. I think it's the time now.
Mr. Foster. What are the temperatures of process heat that
fusion plants are talking about as producing? They're molten--
--
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. So--yes, in the case of inertial
fusion energy plants using molten salts, the process heat will
be about 8-900 degrees Celsius.
Mr. Foster. OK.
Dr. Diaz de la Rubia. So, again, very high temperatures. I
believe that's the case with tokamaks as well.
Mr. Foster. Yes. I'm just struck at how similar these look
at--look like from the balance of plants points of view and
that there's a lot of shared R&D. All right. My time is up. I
yield back.
Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, and thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so
much for having this hearing today. It's really fun to hear
that more and more of our top scientists are recognizing that
fusion has a real role to play, and not just long after we're
dead and buried, that it can happen while we're still here.
And--but I--we do need to have every tool in our toolbox to
rapidly decarbonize, and green hydrogen plays that role in the
hard-to-decarbonize sectors. I worked with Congressman Larsen
and Congresswoman DelBene to introduce the Clean Hydrogen
Production and Investment Tax Credit Act. It was included in
Build Back Better, and we hope it will be in the final version
of Build Back Better that Senator Manchin approves.
Ms. Fakhry, the bipartisan infrastructure law has one hub
designated for blue hydrogen, and you appropriately note the
concerns we might have with hydrogen sourcing, use, and
deployment for negative climate impacts if not done properly.
How do we best shape the blue hydrogen hub to account for those
concerns?
Ms. Fakhry. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. I'd also be curious to
hear my fellow witnesses' ideas here. Yes, there will be a hub
that will be a blue hydrogen hub, and this is where DOE has an
absolute obligation to input and implement a very rigorous and
ambitious production standard around the blue hydrogen, and we
need a very strong measurement, reporting, and verification
system for methane. We still don't have that. This is the
optimal opportunity to start implementing more rigorous rules
around methane leakage.
And when it comes to carbon capture, there needs to be a
requirement that only high carbon capture rates would be
allowed. We cannot allow a 50 percent capture. That is not
enough. We need to be pushing for 90 percent and more with
stringent requirements to ensure that this is always the
operational pattern. It's not a fluctuating between 90 and 50.
We need to ensure high levels of capture.
And, in addition to that, there needs to be a consideration
of public health metrics considering the potential public
health that blue hydrogen poses to communities. There needs to
be very strong and early engagement with those communities
around those projects and strict public health metrics that the
DOE has to impose on these projects.
Dr. Friedmann. If I could add briefly to that, we should
have low upstream emissions standards associated with that. Dr.
Fakhry had mentioned that briefly, but it can't be said enough.
We really want to make sure that's low. To Senator Casten--I
mean, to Representative Casten's point, it would be great if
blue hydrogen projects were not automatically associated with
enhanced oil recovery. In Build Back Better there are
amendments to 45Q that would provide $85-a-ton incentive for
storage in saline aquifers. If the lifecycle of the footprint
of the hydrogen is considered in its totality upstream and
downstream, you'd want to do saline aquifer storage. There are
great places to do this all over the United States from
Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico to California. It would be
wonderful to see projects adopt that stance.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Mr. Kimber, what does it take in your
mind to make electrolysis-based hydrogen cost-competitive with
solar in terms of cost? Germany would argue that we got cost-
competitive solar because of their big investments. So what do
we need for green hydrogen?
Mr. Kimber. We need big investments by government, right? I
think that what we've seen right now is we are just on the very
cusp of, you know, the huge benefits from the investment we've
seen in renewables in wind and solar, right? We're seeing
massive job creation. There are hundreds of thousands of people
in this country working in clean energy. You know, and I think
that the--you know, the hydrogen PTC, to your point, that has
been included in Build Back Better, but I think it has broad
support, in fact bipartisan support in many cases I think is
something that has to happen. We have to have pull-through of
this demand, right? We have to build this stuff for a good 5 or
10 years for us to really begin to see the scalability, the
repeatability, and for it to become a standalone industry that
can run on its own. So I think we need, you know, all of the
stuff we've talked about here that is in the purview of this
Committee but also really need to focus on, you know, trying to
get the same tax credit support that we've had for other energy
technologies, including fossil.
Mr. Beyer. Great, great. Thank you.
Mr. Wipke, I only have 25 seconds, but our labs, how do we
maximize them with the new hubs?
Mr. Wipke. Well, I think, you know, we're going toward a
national network here, and I think we need to make sure that
the national labs are able to be used to support all of the
hubs in a way that is most impactful. This is a turning point,
a tipping point for hydrogen. We just want to all make sure
that this is a big success.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Before we bring the hearing to a close, I
want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the Committee
today. The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned. Thank you all so much for being here.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]