Beaulieu: Hydrogen is not the answer
New England will be coal-free by 2028: this much-needed good news for ratepayers across the region came in just a few weeks ago with Granite Shore Power’s announcement that Merrimack Station and Schiller Station (which hasn’t operated since 2020) in New Hampshire will cease coal operations and transition to renewable energy parks. Their initial press release stated their intention for a “cleaner energy future” that included battery storage and solar energy. I was excited and hopeful, until I saw Granite Shore Power CEO Jim Andrews’ guest column in Seacoastonline, in which he wrote, “Coal is being replaced by solar power, clean hydrogen, green biofuels, and battery storage.”
Solar power and battery storage are exciting, clean energy solutions that I look forward to seeing implemented at these sites - but “clean hydrogen” and “green biofuels” are misnomers that Granite Shore Power clearly wants the general public to gloss over without concern. These are NOT clean energy solutions and we SHOULD be concerned.
Let’s talk about “clean hydrogen.” 95% of hydrogen we use today comes from fracked gas. Hydrogen production currently accounts for 2% of the world’s CO2 emissions. If Mr. Andrews’ “clean hydrogen” is the new technology that uses renewable energy to produce that hydrogen instead of fracked gas, that does not mean the hydrogen use comes without harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Hydrogen is a very small molecule, and easily leaks through pipelines or other storage infrastructure. When hydrogen leaks, it reacts with other molecules in the atmosphere and contributes to dangerous warming effects. This should have no place in a clean energy solution.
What is more, hydrogen technology labeled “clean” or “green” diverts renewable energy from sources like solar and wind into a high-energy use system to isolate hydrogen molecules from water (H2O). Why divert that renewable energy to hydrogen production when you could just use that solar and wind power to send electricity to our homes? Pairing the renewable energy with battery storage would be a better use of space and resources. This “clean hydrogen” would also make an impact on the water in the Merrimack River, taking water out of the river to use to create hydrogen. This process doesn’t return water back to the river and the impact that would have on the river over the long term has not been studied.
Hydrogen can also be incredibly dangerous. Pure hydrogen is explosive so it is often converted to liquid ammonia for transportation, or blended with fracked gas. (Still a fossil fuel! Like coal!) When burned, hydrogen burns at hotter temperatures than other fossil fuels which is dangerous for the workers and surrounding communities. When combusted, hydrogen produces six times as much nitrogen oxide as methane, which has devastating health impacts on communities hosting hydrogen-burning plants. The deaths, asthma, and other negative health impacts that currently hurt communities near the coal plant in Bow would still be present under a transition to hydrogen energy.
Now, “green biofuels” - what does he actually mean by that? Biofuels like ethanol, diesel, and biomass are not adequate clean energy solutions to the climate crisis. They still release CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas buildup. They have many of the same harmful impacts on the climate and on communities that coal plants do.
Additionally, biofuels lead to deforestation and overproduction of crops like corn and soybeans to use for energy instead of food. The air pollutants released when biofuels are burned are still harmful to the health of communities and ecosystems. Calling certain biofuels produced from food or from landfill gas “green” is a way for fossil fuel executives to attempt to convince us their fuels are clean and good for the environment. Biofuels require a great deal of land to grow, cut, and burn, much more than wind and solar. Then, burning the fuel perpetuates the damage that coal, oil, and gas has already done to our planet.
If Granite Shore Power is actually committed to transitioning their facilities into a newer, cleaner energy future that is good for economic growth as well as community health, they would not waste time pursuing “clean hydrogen” or “green biofuels.” Those are simply dirty fuel sources hiding behind the words “clean” and “green” to attempt to convince you they will not have dangerous side-effects on the communities hosting those energy facilities.
More: End of coal in NH: Schiller Station in Portsmouth to become 'renewable energy park'
Mr. Andrews also claims that “From our earliest days as owners and operators at Granite Shore Power, we have been crystal clear; we were fully committed to transitioning our facilities away from coal and into a newer, cleaner energy future.” If this is true at all, Mr. Andrews is ignoring the most important thing he could do in this transition: communicate with the people impacted by his polluting infrastructure. If this is true (which I doubt), Granite Shore Power has kept this secret from the general public since their earliest days. GSP’s decisions have a direct impact on our health and our environment, and our voices should have a direct impact on their decisions.
Rebecca Beaulieu is a climate activist, writer, and Communications Director for 350 New Hampshire. She has been a part of environmental advocacy organizing for over 10 years and resides in Dover.
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Beaulieu: Hydrogen is not the answer
