The Impact

The key to >$1.50/kg hydrogen

To: The Impact Readers

Howdy 👋

This week is packed. My favorite piece this week is all about a company working on getting hydrogen to sub $1.50 and that makes me excited, as it should you 🙃.

Ah – if you find value from this newsletter on a weekly basis, we’d all appreciate it if you shared a link for people to subscribe to The Impact (psst. it’s here).

Every 100 new subscribers we add we’ll pick someone at random who shared The Impact on LinkedIn or Twitter to highlight as part of these amazing commentary paragraphs I grace your screen with.

All you have to do is tag The Impact!

– Swarnav S Pujari

In Your Inbox: A startup aiming to drive hydrogen below $1.50/kg; Repurposing oil wells for energy storage and generation; A new startup aiming to rebuild the grid differently; Clean energy and Congress

🚀 STARTUPS & TECH

The magic mix needed to get to $1.50/kg hydrogen

By Max Melnick • is a Business Analyst at Cleantech Ventures, LLC, an international consulting agency assisting early-stage cleantech startups. He is an aspiring managing director of an early-stage clean energy accelerator.

Figure-1.-Novel-combination-of-electrolyzers-and-advanced-electrodes-is-specifically-designed-for-large-scale-applications
Hydrogen is coming. (Image: Chemical Processing)

It is astronomical how much energy is devoted to industrial and transportation services, just take a look at this visual from Saul Griffith’s Otherlab to start to wrap your head around the allocation. It is pretty clear that the world is shifting away from these industries’ primary resources—petroleum, natural gas, and coal— and toward something that can both pack the power needed for heavy industry and capture the emission advantages of wind and solar.

This is where hydrogen comes into play, and Origen Hydrogen is on the way to commercializing an electrolyzer box that uses absolutely no rare earth materials, is fully autonomous, can be turned on and off, and can operate at an impressively small nameplate capacity. The CEO and Founder of Origen, Taylor Huff, talked with me about how Origen’s electrolyzer differentiates from the standard proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers, how the industry can reach sub $1.50 per kilo H2, the limitations to reaching for 100MW green hydrogen projects, and the best policy and finance environments to help the green hydrogen economy.

Why is solid-state an innovation in the electrolyzer space? Is it the same principle as a solid-state battery?

It is the same concept, meaning that the conducting of something, which typically happens in a liquid electrolyte, happens in a solid material. Alkaline electrolyzers would be the conventional, liquid electrolyte technology.

It is quite mature, it has been around for about a century— the principle of sticking electrodes in an electrolyte fluid and bubbling current. But it is a mature technology that has reached its runway. It has reached 20 gigawatts of alkaline electrolyzers in the chloralkali industry, to produce chlorine gas. So it is a mature technology deployed at scale. There is not a ton of innovation on the technology side or scale-up cost reductions, the core electrolyzer is very mature. Liquid electrolytes introduce a more complex balance of plants.

So for an alkaline system, it’s a very complex balance of plants because that liquid electrolyte fluid needs to be separated from the product streams, stored, and recirculated. That complex balance plant has higher capital and operating costs because there are more pieces of equipment to build and maintain, it is not an autonomous system, it is difficult to scale down to the site at a fueling station for example, and the system is not easily turned on/ off or ramped up and down. There is a limit to how low you can run the plant, these alkaline systems are like a small chemical plant with this liquid electrolyte fluid and the separate equipment wants to be at certain flow rates and temperatures to operate properly, it wants to be turned on and it wants to stay on.

On the other hand, a solid-state system uses water only and the electrolyte conduction is all done through the solid material. Proton Exchange Membrane electrolyzers (PEMs) would be in a solid-state – the membrane is the electrolyte. Solid oxide fuel cells are solid-state as well, but they have some additional system challenges. Origen’s electrolyzers are solid-state and our surrounding system is the same as PEMs. Our system looks like a PEMs system but it is a different box that can be operated autonomously, with a smaller footprint, lower capital costs, can be turned on and off, and can operate at a very small nameplate capacity. So, you can pair [our electrolyzers] with renewables, and you can cite it at a fueling station. It has all the advantages of a PEMs system, but our box eliminates all the expensive metal usage of PEMs. The PEM box is a major CAPEX component because it uses expensive metals for the components and catalysts.

So, are you able to avoid the use of Platinum and Iridium entirely?

We avoid them entirely.

I think this point is not communicated enough. With PEM electrolyzers, it is not just the catalysts, it is the full box, the whole thing is full of exotic metal.

The components are solid titanium coated with gold, and that is to be corrosion resistant in a very acidic environment, plus the voltage. And the catalysts are, as you mentioned, platinum and iridium. So there is the scarcity of metals concern, but more importantly, if you scale up a technology like this your raw materials costs do not decrease, right? Raw materials are such a large portion of costs that it is a cost floor that we believe is an impediment to ever reaching sub $1.50 per kilo hydrogen.

At the end of the day, these PEM systems are a box of exotic metals, and for something at an industrial scale – this is unheard of.

Does this mean that for hydrogen to be truly cost-competitive, no matter how much capital is thrown at it, we may never get hydrogen down to a price that will truly compete with diesel or natural gas without addressing this cost of raw materials issue?

We do not believe that existing technology can reach the price point to open up all these different markets. For some markets, this is sufficient. When competing against diesel, higher-cost hydrogen per kilo is acceptable. But the large feedstock markets— steel, fertilizer, methanol chemicals, etc— we think will not reach price parity with PEMS.

Would a carbon tax help change this market environment at all?

A carbon tax helps, but even in a world with a carbon tax, there is still an advantage to produce even lower-cost hydrogen. It is a competitive advantage for the producer. There is always the impetus to want to decrease your input costs.

Here is the Levelized cost of hydrogen. Based on two cost curves, one is a CAPEX cost curve for PEMs based on what ITM Power, NEL, and others have said that they can get to. The other cost curve is renewables becoming cheaper, and there is a Rocky Mountain Institute cost curve for US wind and solar. We see PEMs leveling out at around $1.60 to $1.70 per kilo. But that is only production cost, so then if you need to transport and store the hydrogen that adds to the cost. This will not be sufficient for the larger feedstock markets. But if you take the precious metals out, the wedge, which is the ~60-70 cents per kilogram delta between PEMs and Origen Hydrogen, is very important for these feedstock markets. It is quite a competitive advantage for a steel or fertilizer plant to have that much cheaper hydrogen.

Are there any additional details you can share on the materials used in the components of your systems? If they are not using rare earth metals, what are they using?

In our box, we use an Anion Exchange Membrane, not a Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM). A PEM connects the protons, but here we conduct the anions (OH-). What this means is that we do not have acidic conditions. A membrane that connects protons like a PEM is highly acidic. It is kind of the definition of acidity, just a whole bunch of protons moving through. So, everything in contact with that membrane in the surrounding area is exposed to these very acidic conditions. This is why we need [these expensive metals]. But in Anion exchange membranes, since we are not conducting protons, we do not have those acidic conditions.

Thus, our catalysts are nickel and iron-based, and our components are one of the grades of stainless steel. So the types of stuff we see at an industrial scale, like stainless steel reactors, nickel, and iron catalysts.

It seems like the period from the research bench to commercialization is becoming shorter and shorter for materials science. One reason for this is the application of machine learning approaches to materials discovery and development. Did you use any machine learning techniques in your discovery process? Will you need to continue to innovate in the materials you use to maintain your cost of hydrogen advantage over PEMs?

That is an interesting question. The initial R&D [for Origen Hydrogen started] at Georgia Tech more than 10 years ago in 2009. We think the materials [we use in our electrolyzers] are fully developed, there have been 1000s of hours of testing. So we feel confident in the materials. I am not aware of any AI-based techniques they used. We are using some machine learning techniques when we test the entire assembly. This helps speed things up first, but this is not our core expertise.

What about more generally on how the trend of applying machine learning to materials science to reduce the time to commercialization? Should the hydrogen market be paying attention to this?

It helps accelerate things, but it does not necessarily just have to be about developing novel materials.  I view the material as the platform and the ink and the electrode design is where the continuing incremental innovation can be. And there are analogies to that on the battery side as well with companies going after new electrode designs, Sila Nanotech, is probably the most well-funded one that has a new targeted electrode for the platform. But I think in our case the application is more on electrodes and catalyst ink, which is a materials science, but it lends itself toward quicker iterations and discoveries.

Is the lack of a liquid electrolyte a manufacturing advantage? To an extent, the name of the game in new technology is getting to higher and higher manufacturing capacities to reduce costs and ideally take advantage of scaling laws. Does the solid-state nature of the electrolyzers make scaled manufacturing more accessible than would be the case with an electrolyzer market that uses liquid electrolytes?

I wouldn’t necessarily phrase it that way. For us specifically, the fact that we use the same balance of plant as a PEM is an accelerator to scale. So we only need to develop the box. And then there is an ecosystem of partners to work with on the balance plant. So fewer resources to commercialize, easier to get to scale manufacturing the box rather than the full systems.

This is not one of our main thesis, but I do think that it is worth noting that for electrolyzers, the manufacturing costs are much lower compared to the materials cost than for solar and batteries. And that’s because for solar, silicon is very cheap. So solar is doping semiconductors, and you need these expensive factories and clean rooms, and there is a lot of potential there.

Lithium-ion is still relatively cheap, and the entire battery is not built using precious metals in the housing and all of the layers. Whereas with PEMs, there is a cost reduction with manufacturing at scale, but to manufacture them is not that difficult. So it is taking these different layers, assembling and testing them, and then there is only one coating process. Materials costs are a fairly significant shock. So there is a different way of thinking that states there still needs to be innovation against that materials cost wedge, and you can only go so far with manufacturing scale.

Does anything make you nervous about the strategy Origen Hydrogen is betting on?

What I am concerned about is the speed to market. Not so much the technology locking, but more how do we get to market quickly enough and de-risk and prove the technology such that a company that’s developing very large projects will feel comfortable investing in our technology. And I think that what’s more of a challenge for green hydrogen and some of these other technologies is the scale of projects. If we exclude mobility, the feedstock markets (steel, ammonia, methanol usage, and refining, etc) are all very large demand centers.

So there is not a huge hydrogen market in the 10 to 15 Megawatt range. There will be smaller-scale industrial uses in the fueling station market, in the 5 to 10 MW range. But then the other demand will be 100-megawatt plus, so how do we get the technology proven and bankable to be deployed in the 100 MW plus projects. I think it is speed, deployments, and operating hours.

If you were responsible for creating the right policy and finance environment to enable the hydrogen economy, what principles do you think would act as the foundation for this new environment? What do you want to see as a founder from the policy and financial leaders?

I hate to use the word subsidy, but the investment tax credit for solar is a capital cost subsidy.
That will drive the market growth for green hydrogen. If projects are eligible, meaning confirmed renewable energies input to find a use for the green hydrogen, the ability for some of that CAPEX to be returned in the form of a tax credit. That definitely helps.

In Europe that is a model that is being used to accelerate deployment. They call it a CAPEX subsidy and projects on a case-by-case basis submit for CAPEX sharing. I think that in the US that should be framed as an investment tax credit. This would certainly help.

On the other side of things, you can call it a price premium for the product, a low carbon fuel standard beyond California, Oregon, and Washington deployed federally could help from a couple of different angles. It would help build out a fueling station network. Hydrogen stations in California are eligible for LCFS credits.

It also incentivizes any existing renewable fuels to use green hydrogen, like renewable diesel and jet fuel. There is a large build-out going on and refinery conversions to produce these products. If you use green hydrogen and the refining of renewable diesel or jet fuel, that is a further price premium for the product that incentivizes a switch to green hydrogen. So I would say those two mechanisms would be the most effective. Probably the investment tax credit is the simplest mechanism.

Thoughts and Outlook

Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and host of the clean energy podcast Cleaning Up, has repeatedly mentioned the versatility of hydrogen in a decarbonized energy future. But when it comes to the options for heavy industry, and how they may be able to take advantage of the cheap energy enabled by wind and solar, their options may be more limited.

Not even the best policy environments can overcome the reality of physics and unit economics. Cheaper materials to produce more efficient and affordable electrolyzers will enable low-cost production of green hydrogen, but some rather steep market milestones still need to be met. Getting electrolyzers to a scale that enables sub $1.50 / kilo of hydrogen is a major milestone that will enable incredible decarbonization across the board. Companies like Origen Hydrogen are helping heavy industry decarbonize, but saliency might be an overlooked feature that must be addressed alongside the physical challenges of commercializing technology. Many fronts will need to be attacked at once, and Origen is making sure that when the market is ready they have the hardware to enable a green hydrogen economy.

Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on reddit

Sign up for The Impact and learn the perspectives behind the latest sustainability trends

🚀 STARTUPS & TECH

Oil wells for clean energy production and storage

By Jeff Macon • is the venture development manager for Fresno State's Water, Energy, and Technology (WET) Center.

Finding a way to repurpose oil wells for the clean energy transition. (Image: Unsplash)
Finding a way to repurpose oil wells for the clean energy transition. (Image: Unsplash)

What to do with all of those oil wells? Use them to produce and store clean energy, of course.

That’s what Kemp Gregory, CEO, and Stefan Streckfus, CTO, of Renewell Energy, are actively working towards.

Renewell Energy’s timing may be opportune as they’re working on a prototype in Texas and it should be ready to test in mid-July as the White House’s pending infrastructure plan includes about $17B to remediate oil wells, which is what Renewell would like to do.

Reusing oil wells certainly seems better than just leaving them be or destroying them. Especially, as reports have shown, up to 40 percent of oil wells pollute methane or carcinogenic chemicals. So, how could Renewell renew the two million or so U.S. oil wells that are currently inactive and remain unplugged as well as all of those that will soon be defunct? Here’s the plan:

  • First, seal inactive oil wells at the bottom to isolate the associated hydrocarbon reservoirs to stop pollution from coming up.
  • Second, flush out the fluids in the inactive oil wells and replace those with clean water and helpful additives.
  • Next, install Renewell’s regenerative winch with a long cylindrical weight held by a wire. (Say what?)


Renewell’s forthcoming prototype is intended to show they can charge their energy storage device in these oil wells by lifting a cylindrical weight to the top of an oil well which converts energy to potential energy. An advantage here would be that the mechanical storage of energy could be stored for as long as the weight is suspended.

To produce energy, Renewell’s regenerative winch would lower the weight to the bottom of the oil well so the winch’s motor would move in reverse and would act as a generator to produce electrical energy. Again, one of the benefits of producing energy with the lifting and falling of weight is that this mechanical process could be paused or started at any time.

The team at Renewell is working to finalize a commercial design and to get to full-scale production with pre-seed funding. However, the team acknowledged they will need to overcome regulatory hurdles from organizations such as CalGEM that regulate oil wells as no one up to this point ever considered adapting these wells for clean energy production and storage.

So, incentives in place for these oil wells are set up to ‘pull’ oil instead of storing energy which means once an oil well stops producing oil or gas, it is penalized to prompt the clean-up of the non-operational well. Renewell Energy is working with CalGEM and other regulatory agencies to overcome this penalty that if left in place could negatively affect the financial return on investment, or ROI, of their clean energy and storage solution.

Renewell conveyed their expectations to close a seed round in 2022. I hope their pre-seed funding is renewed so their team can bring well-deserved ‘wellness’ to all defunct and polluting oil wells in the U.S.

Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on reddit

🚀 STARTUPS & TECH

Building the utility of the future to support 100% EV adoption

By Daniel Kriozere • is a Business Analyst at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and aspiring investor & advisor to clean-tech startups.

Driving us quickly towards 100% EV adoption. (Image: Unsplash)
Driving us quickly towards 100% EV adoption. (Image: Unsplash)

In a significant milestone for the development of its microgrid technology, ElectricFish has been issued a patent that uniquely covers the creation of a “utility of the future” that is built of locally decentralized energy storage units and dynamically optimizes energy to enable a seamless and grid-resilient transition to EV charging.

Why does this matter?

  • The fundamental nature of how we generate and consume energy is changing. The energy that was originally generated for communities with homes and industries is now serving power-hungry electric vehicles – each drawing enough power as 300 homes when fast charging. This will break the grid and limit our ability to deliver on our extremely optimistic goals of EV adoption.
  • Utilities are currently struggling to integrate more EV charging loads because the grid is not designed for it.
  • The patent is overarching in a way that it also covers the creation of a decentralized utility of the future. One of the augmentations which I just filed as a Continuation-In-Part to our patent, is how to optimize this energy storage and how to exactly build a geographically distributed storage network, figuring out where exactly we are going to put these units so we can augment the capacity of the grid.
  • Companies that build centralized storage are taking advantage of the current electricity grid. The new electricity grid will serve local areas better and more equitably.

What is next?

  • Electric Fish’s solution being deployed in dense urban communities and at locations like gas stations increases the electric grids’ ability to act as an energy buffer, which can store local energy generation as well as support the growth of Extreme-Fast public EV charging.
  • Electric Fish uses data to drive equitable access in the deployment of their technology.
  • By keeping track of metrics like greenhouse gas emissions mitigated they aim to reduce the mean level of particulate matter found in urban settlements and reduce the disaster risk for communities by building local energy resilience.
  • ElectricFish can start conducting business and is bidding into resource adequacy contracts with aggregators.

Outlook

ElectricFish serves a gap in the market where utilities are struggling (with EV charging load). The main value proposition is the ability to manage units together and then use the aggregated capacity effectively. Optimistically, they will solve the challenges of building local energy capacity and serving fast charging inside cities.

Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on reddit

📃 POLICY & FINANCE

Cleantech Innovators Bring their Energy to Congress to Boost RD&D

By Andy Barnes • he serves as Director of Policy and Communications at the Clean Energy Business Network and has prior experience in the public, private, and nonprofit energy sectors.

Climate entrepreneurs are pushing Congress on climate friendly policy. (Image: Unsplash)
Climate entrepreneurs are pushing Congress on climate friendly policy. (Image: Unsplash)
This spring, 42 clean energy business leaders within the Clean Energy Business Network participated in a flurry of advocacy meetings on clean energy research, development, and demonstration. These founders and executives represent clean energy firms that collectively employ over 285 workers and have previously received Department of Energy funding through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. The group pushed Congress to boost funding for clean energy RD&D programs across the Department of Energy in Fiscal Year 2022 Appropriations. CEBN hosted a total of 41 virtual meetings with Members of Congress or their staff. (View a complete list of participating companies.)

Recent bipartisan support for clean energy innovation has led to increased funding for crucial programs across DOE, but reports from Columbia University and Breakthrough Energy highlight the need to push the federal clean energy RD&D budget even further. These investments will ensure that the next-generation of clean energy technologies and services is developed in America and built by American workers.

A diverse coalition of over 100 organizations sent a recent letter to Congress that called on policymakers to fund “a multi-billion dollar increase for vital research, development, demonstration, and commercial deployment activities across all Science and Energy program areas” at DOE. The letter notes these investments pay off in the short and long-term and have supported 118,000 workers across all 50 states. CEBN’s group of advocates represented 20 states, from urban areas in California and New York to rural communities in Idaho and Wyoming.

Summary of Department of Energy Funding Levels (FY19-FY21)

The Energy Act of 2020, which passed in December of last year, authorized $35.2 billion in additional funding for these programs from FY 2021 to 2025. Appropriators should ensure that these funds are appropriated to the fullest extent of this bill.

Meetings with Congressional leaders also served to communicate the group’s priority to place clean energy as a central pillar in an infrastructure package. Investments in the grid, transmission, electric vehicle infrastructure, and other cleantech initiatives serve to enhance the resilience of the U.S. energy system, generate jobs, and reduce emissions. The CEBN previously circulated a letter with over 200 clean energy business leaders calling on Congress to support clean energy in an infrastructure package.

In addition, CEBN staff presented two proposals to improve outcomes for small businesses engaging with the Federal Government. This includes improvements to the SBIR program through no-cost or low-cost changes as Congress considers reauthorization of the Small Business Act this year. A recent report from Third Way highlights many of these proposals, and the CEBN circulated a letter last year with 75 businesses backing these changes. CEBN is calling for new signatures to an updated letter this year.

Congressional Offices also heard briefings on potential tweaks to the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office to enhance access to financing for small and medium sized businesses. The LPO has historically distributed loans of at least $50 million to support innovative clean energy deployment and manufacturing. This proposal seeks to set aside a small fraction of funding for smaller loans that would finance first-of-a-kind demonstration projects from small to mid-sized businesses that the private sector may be unwilling to finance alone.
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on reddit

Subscribe || Advertise || Feedback || Privacy

Editors: Swarnav S Pujari, Daniel Kriozere Writers: Jeff Macon, Andy Barnes, Max Melnick

If you aren’t absolutely thrilled with The Impact, reply and let us know why. Or you can unsubscribe from all updates by clicking 
here.

Copyright Š  The Impact 2021. All Rights Reserved || 19 Morris Ave, Bldg 128, Brooklyn NY 11205

Join Our Newsletter!

Receive analysis on emerging technologies, research and news in the clean-tech space.

If you don't love it, it's easy to unsubscribe!
The Impact Newsletter

Join Our Newsletter

Read by experts & Written by experts in the clean tech industry. Weekly analysis in a simple, but witty way. 

If you don't love it, it's easy to unsubscribe!