The federal government is on the verge of announcing which states will receive $2 billion to create "blue" hydrogen hubs, and West Virginia, along with Pennsylvania, Ohio and other Appalachian states, are expected to be awarded funds.

Critics say the technology is radically expensive, inefficient, and isn't as "clean" as advertised. "Blue" hydrogen is produced using a process called steam reforming, which brings together natural gas and steam, releasing carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, explained residents will likely wind up covering the high cost of developing hydrogen hubs in the form of increased monthly energy bills.

"So while the federal government might hand over $2 billion, we have to come up with $2 billion of our own," O'Leary pointed out. "That money is going to have to be recovered, and it most likely will have to be recovered from ratepayers."

The Biden administration said the hubs will help slash emissions from carbon-intensive sectors and open up economic opportunity for clean energy businesses.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumers paid more than 14% more for electricity last year. O'Leary contended without a shift to low-cost renewables, a greater chunk of residents' household budgets will likely go toward energy bills.

"Those costs which have already for the last decade, been skyrocketing at one of the fastest rates in the nation, will continue to skyrocket and go up even more as the portion of funding that's required for the hydrogen hub gets passed through to ratepayers," O'Leary stressed.

O'Leary also pointed out most of the infrastructure for blue hydrogen hubs still relies on fracking used to tap into natural gas, and the same carbon capture technology involved in retrofitting coal-fired power plants and gas fired power plants.

"In fact, most of the carbon that would be captured would come from coal and gas fired power plants, and not the manufacturer of hydrogen," O'Leary added.

A 2021 study published in the journal Energy Science and Engineering found blue hydrogen might be just as bad or worse for the environment than burning coal.

NASA-funded research using satellites to study atmospheric nitrogen will examine how different farming approaches affect greenhouse gas emissions.

The $1.1 million grant will fund a team of scientists, including two at institutions in Maryland, who will use remote sensing satellites to look for accumulations of airborne ammonia and nitrogen in rural settings.

The researchers will then conduct soil sampling to determine which types of farming methods are better or worse for the climate.

Stephanie Yarwood, PhD - associate professor of environmental science and technology at the University of Maryland - is one of the principal investigators and said this research will help improve climate modeling.

"What we're really trying to do is make a connection between what a satellite can see, which is ammonia, and to make more of a link or less of a link depending on what we find, to nitrous oxide production," said Yarwood. "Because that's really what global models are trying to account for. They're trying to really understand, well how much greenhouse gas emission is there?"

She said as a greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is 300 times more powerful than CO2.

The grant runs for four years with research set to begin this winter.

While air quality measurements in cities are common, there is less data on rural areas. Yarwood said remote sensing satellite technology that can examine atmospheric chemistry at a continental scale is relatively new.

In studying soil contents, researchers hope to establish how microbial communities impact the release of nitrogen into the air and water.

Yarwood said the team will build mathematical models that can predict how nitrogen moves through the soil.

Researchers hope the work will offer hard data on the impact of various conservation practices and help policymakers and stakeholders decide how to spend both time and money.

"A lot of times, there's money invested, either from the government or from the producer," said Yarwood. "There's time in figuring new technologies out and applying those, there's some risk involved in that. I think we really need good data to be able to tell farmers, 'Yes, this is really something that's going to help', and we're going to see less nitrous oxide or not based on that."

The study includes a researcher from the University of California, Irvine - and one at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory in Beltsville.





get more stories like this via email

A handful of Iowa's biggest cities has been awarded $3 million to work on solutions to climate change at the local level.

The climate pollution reduction grants are part of a $5 billion program to assess climate change and come up with ways to address a steadily warming planet.

Pam Mackey-Taylor, director of the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club, said when the state of Iowa declined to apply for the grants, it opened up the opportunities to individual communities. They will use the money to develop specific plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollution at the local level.

"The cities of Iowa City, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines decided to pursue the grants," Mackey-Taylor explained. "They are going to be doing planning for not only the cities but the counties they're in and some of the neighboring counties."

Cedar Rapids and Iowa City together were awarded $2 million, and Des Moines received $1 million. Mackey-Taylor pointed out the money will be used on things such as making buildings more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. Iowa was one of just four states not to pursue grant funding on a statewide basis. The others were Florida, South Dakota and Kentucky.

The Environmental Protection Agency will help train local and tribal leaders on how best to plan for and use the money. Mackey-Taylor noted while the smaller grants are critical to addressing the problems at the local level, Iowa may have missed an opportunity to work on bigger issues by passing on the larger grants.

"We still have some challenges," Mackey-Taylor observed. "Our agriculture sector in Iowa generates 29% of the greenhouse gases. Our residential, commercial and industrial generate 27% of the state's greenhouse gases and our electricity and power plants generate 19%."

Iowa has made strides in reducing emissions in the electricity sector. More than half of the state's power is now generated by wind.

Some state and local lawmakers are on a long list calling on New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to require big oil companies to help offset the costs of damages caused by climate change.

More than 60 New York elected officials have signed a letter emphasizing the need to keep up with climate extremes through local projects to protect coastlines, restore wetlands, elevate or buy out threatened homes, improve water and sewer systems, retrofit public buildings and more.

Dominic Frongillo, co-founder and executive director of Elected Officials to Protect America and a former council member and deputy supervisor in Caroline, said the major question is who will pay for the projects?

"In Caroline, New York, we were hit by two 100-year storms in five years, causing millions of dollars in public infrastructure damage," Frongillo recounted. "Our taxpayers can't support that. We need the Climate Change Superfund Act to protect our communities and protect our taxpayers from the damages caused by 'Big Oil.'"

A study from the State Comptroller estimated from 2018 to 2028, more than half of New York's municipal spending outside of New York City was, or will be, related to the climate emergency.

The Climate Change Superfund Act passed the state Senate earlier this year and is supported by more than 240 environmental, faith, civic and labor groups.

In the decade from 2011 to 2021, New York was hit by 16 major climate-related disasters, for which FEMA allocated more than $17 billion in assistance.

Cate Rogers, a council member for the Town of East Hampton, said when funds to help communities hit by extreme weather run out, additional support will have to come from local and state governments, which she claims is unfair.

"The funding burden must fall directly on the polluting big oil companies that are responsible for the climate emergency, not our taxpayers," Rogers argued. "We cannot stand by and let 'Big Oil' continue to post record profits while we clean up their mess."

East Hampton just secured a $600,000 state grant for a plan to consider moving downtown Montauk if it becomes necessary. Rogers noted regardless of which government entity pays for the necessary expenses, it is still coming from taxpayers rather than the polluters.