Trump’s doe swings to Clean Energy and accidentally strikes a Bullseye

Register for the Daily News updates of Cleantechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Last update on: March 29, 2025, 5:29 p.m.

In a decision that did not surprise anyone, the Trump / Wright Energy Department began to swing the ax to Clean Energy Programms – but here is the twist: this time, they could accidentally get a few things correctly. Not because they suddenly developed a coherent decarbonization strategy or found religion on climate policy. No, their motivations are in a transparent and political manner – the punishment democratic states, reaffect billions to finance tax reductions for billionaires and sprinkle a red state favoritism on ashes. But in the middle of smoke and mirrors, some of these cuts in hydrogen centers and carbon capture projects – in particular these targeting hydrogen for transport – have more sense than anyone in this administration probably does it.

Let’s start with the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association. The DOE had reserved about $ 1 billion for this project, which is put to the ground in electrolytic hydrogen produced using renewable energies. Their concentration? The initiative aimed to decarbonize the difficult to electrifying sectors such as transport, agriculture and industrial operations in heavy service, including the production of fertilizers and cement. Mainly energy use cases with aid to ammonia fertilizer, the only value proposal there. I will not cry this center.

Then there is California Archs Hub. Price: $ 1.5 billion. This is strongly based on hydrogen for transport. Public bus, fuel cell trucks, perhaps the occasional erroneous hydrogen gear. This is a classic California case that tries to wish that hydrogen cars exist as if it was 2003. The problem? Physics has called, and he wants to return his effectiveness. When you go from hydrogen via electrolysis, compress it, transport it and transmit it into electricity in a vehicle, you have thrown about two thirds of the original energy. The batteries beat this circus act in each metric that counts. Cut the funding here? Accidentally shiny, and I hope they will follow.

Then: the Midwest regional center covering Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. Budgeted up to $ 1.3 billion, this project mixes industrial and transport applications, hydrogen should come from a mixture of nuclear power, renewable energies and natural gas associated with carbon capture. Blue transport and hydrogen are large red flags, not to mention the existing nuclear generation far from the best use cases. If this hub will receive entirely on industrial use with green hydrogen, we could have a conversation. As it stands, it is a “no” on my part. Cut.

The Median -Atlantic Center – Coverage of Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey – plans to spend $ 1.2 billion for Develop new hydrogen pipelines, build truck loading installations and use hydrogen trailers to connect producers and end users. Targeted applications include transport sectors such as trucks, buses and sanitation vehicles, as well as industrial heat and electricity production. Lots of hydrogen for the use of energy with a secondary order of waste of existing nuclear electrons. It is a well-being initiative that ignores basic thermodynamics. Deactivation of the tap here has meaning, regardless of deformation of the underlying pattern.

The three hydrogen centers are apparently spared by the budget axis – hyvelocity in Texas and Louisiana, the center of the Appalachians covering Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia -Western, and the heart of heart that extends over the Dakotas and Minnesota – Strong Dakotas and Republican Forces. Their continuous funding has less to do with technical merit and more with the electoral cards and the gratitude of donors. These projects are not fundamentally better; It turns out that they sit in the postal codes that the current administration loves. If politics was not at stake, at least one of them would also be under the ax.

I have evaluated some iterations of Biden Doe’s hydrogen strategy in recent years. The last showed a certain improvement in relation to its predecessor, but remained fundamentally defective, mainly serving the interests of the fossil fuels industry. The strategy has continued to diagnose the role of hydrogen badly, promoting its use in the transport and industrial heating sectors where more efficient and more effective electrification alternatives exist. In particular, the inclusion of hydrogen for temperatures above 300 ° C neglects existing electrical solutions capable of reaching up to 3,000 ° C. In addition, the advocacy of the hydrogen strategy in commercial and residential heating is wrong, given the proven superiority of heat pumps in terms of safety and economy.

An important concern was the continuous emphasis on the strategy on hydrogen production from fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. This approach mainly benefits the fossil fuels sector, as most CCS applications in the United States are linked to an improved oil recovery – a practice incompatible with real climatic solutions. The gaps in the strategy arise from its development within the DOE, strongly influenced by the interests of fossil fuels, and lacking substantial contribution of sectors which are the main hydrogen consumers today, such as the ammonia industry for the production of fertilizers.

The missteps of the strategy were largely forced by the congress which allocated it to the energy guys instead of the commercial guys who deal with industry, then demanding that hydrogen be made from coal and gas, and requiring the hierarchy of the reuse of fossil combustible infrastructure. No wonder it has done things as bad as the first time and has not achieved reality in the update. The strategy defects have reflected in hydrogen centers, hence the reason why none of them has much meaning.

Now move the gears towards the capture and storage of carbon, this sustainable darling of the fossil fuels industry. First of all: Project Cypress in Louisiana, a company of $ 550 million aimed at capturing the CO₂ of hydrogen production facilities and tuyaucing it 30 miles until underground storage. But let’s not have the foggy eyes too much – it is not the green hydrogen of renewable energies. It is blue hydrogen, born from natural gas with a slapped carbon capture strip. And this gas? He flees like a sieve. The American oil and gas sector spits methane through the landscape, and with the potential for global warming of methane over 80 times, climate mathematics are starting to appear quickly. CCs at the rear cannot repair the hemorrhage upstream. Although this project may seem respectable on paper, it always feels a swampy gas. Cancel it does not pull you in the foot – it may well avoid a long and slow amputation.

Then there is the South Texas Direct Air Capture Hub. Half half-milliard of dollars to suck the co₂ of the ambient air and send it more than 50 miles of storage pipeline. It is a thermodynamic nightmare that drinks energy like a dehydrated camel to an oasis. Direct air capture could one day help clean residual emissions, but it is far from ready for prime time. Maybe in 2050. Spending hundreds of millions now is like ordering champagne for a party that has not even been planned yet. If Wright and the company want to cancel it to save money for grants at Gulfstream Jet Fuel, well-leave them. The result is even better than the alternative.

In the end, it is a masterclass by stumbling back in good decisions. Yes, the administration eliminates clean energy for all bad reasons. Yes, it targets disproportionately the blue states. But if you fold the folds beyond political meanness, most of these proposed cancellations align with what energy modelers, physicists and whoever have already heard of the second law of thermodynamics have been saying for years: hydrogen for energy is a boondoggy, and CCS only makes sense in very narrow and industrial use.

It is not leadership. It is not a strategy. It is more of the Trump administration which takes place in the Chinese energy store, governance and diplomacy as a bull on crystal methamphetamine. But in some isolated cases, this is the right call. This probably means that they will not follow.