Hydrogen hubs are not good for Pennsylvania | Opinion

Earlier this year, an alliance of seven natural gas, energy, petrochemical, and steel companies announced that it will create a “low-carbon and hydrogen industrial hub” in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. The hydrogen hub, which will also focus on carbon capture and storage, is not a good idea for Pennsylvania — or for other states in the Ohio River Valley.

Carbon capture and storage refers to a three-stage process in which carbon dioxide produced by power generation or industrial activity is captured, compressed, and transported to locations where it can be stored by injecting it deep underground. Supporters suggest that with the application of carbon capture, hydrogen produced from natural gas could be the key to decarbonization, or reducing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. But this is not a viable climate solution because its production still results in an outsize greenhouse gas footprint.

Implementing hydrogen and carbon capture would entail more drilling, more fracking, more pipelines, and more pollution — but little in the way of job creation for Pennsylvanians.

Smart economic development can both fight climate change and promote job growth and prosperity. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, fossil fuel companies would rather invest in hydrogen and carbon capture and storage than address the problem of climate change directly. These technologies are unproven, expensive, and benefit their bottom line.

New research suggests that hydrogen fuel could actually be worse for the climate than burning coal, and has a 20% larger carbon footprint than natural gas and coal when used for heat. Most hydrogen production today starts with a fossil fuel — methane — and is generated through steam-methane reforming. This process uses high-temperature steam to separate the hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms in methane molecules.

Another option for hydrogen production is electrolysis, the process of using electricity to split the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water. The electricity needed for this process is often generated from fossil fuels like coal and gas.

Both methods of producing hydrogen generate carbon dioxide, so carbon capture and storage is proposed as a way to make the process more climate-friendly. But carbon capture is not yet feasible on a large scale. Despite the known concerns over cost, feasibility, and climate impact, hydrogen has quickly become a darling of the national conversation on decarbonization.

» READ MORE: Investing in clean energy will add over 126,000 jobs in Pennsylvania | Opinion

The bipartisan infrastructure law signed last year includes $8 billion for regional hydrogen hubs. The Department of Energy is preparing to accept funding applications for pilot projects, and there are already efforts in Harrisburg to designate one such hub in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has promoted a fleet of four hydrogen hub projects, including at least one in the shale gas-producing region of Appalachia. The infrastructure law suggests that at least two of the regional hydrogen hubs should be in natural gas production regions, like the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania.

Business as usual for the fossil fuel industry will increase local environmental, health, and safety risks, particularly in low-income communities, including the residents of Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania, who fear that proximity to fracking operations is endangering the health of their children, and the many residents along the Mariner East pipeline route whose land, water, and safety have been compromised. Our communities are already overburdened by industrial pollution, dispossession, and the impacts of the climate crisis.

“It doesn’t have to be this way. There are pathways to decarbonization that create more jobs and improve rather than harm our local communities.”

Hydrogen hubs are unlikely to create many permanent jobs or kickstart economic development. And they’re very expensive. Retrofitting just the nation’s coal and gas-fired power plants for carbon capture and sequestration would add approximately $100 billion per year to Americans’ electric bills, an increase of 25%.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are pathways to decarbonization that create more jobs and improve rather than harm our local communities. To reduce carbon emissions, as well as prevent local pollution from fossil fuel extraction, we need to prioritize electrification. We can clean up power generation by transitioning to renewable resources such as wind and solar. Embracing the latest battery storage technologies and energy efficiency upgrades can provide tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in local communities.

Cleaning up the region’s abandoned mines and orphaned wells — as well as the many low-producing “stripper” wells at risk of being orphaned — could create thousands of jobs each year for experienced and apprentice pipefitters, coal miners, operating engineers, and construction workers, while also abating thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency retrofits are another job-creating strategy that also lowers the region’s energy use and saves Pennsylvanians money on their utility bills.

Pennsylvania cannot afford to spend any more time or taxpayer money on false solutions. We work hard for our families, and we all deserve good jobs and clean air, water, and land in the places we live.

We can place clean air and water for all ahead of corporate profits for the few. Hydrogen hubs won’t get us there.

Joanne Kilgour is the executive director of the Ohio River Valley Institute, an independent think tank that advances a more prosperous, sustainable, and equitable Appalachia with data-driven research. She is a graduate of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.