Text version of opening remarks by The Honorable Dr. Bill Cassidy, U.S. Senator (R-La.), during the Thermal Conversion with Carbon Capture and Storage panel session at the DOE Hydrogen Shot Summit, August 31, 2021.
Bill Cassidy: United States Senator Bill Cassidy here. I have the privilege of representing the great state of Louisiana. And I also have the privilege of speaking to this Department of Energy symposium as regards hydrogen energy. And I connect those because as someone from Louisiana I think about all aspects of energy and the environment regularly.
So, let me begin by just taking some context that we all know of but I would just like to set the stage. Hydrogen is a dynamic fuel that can be used across all industries and sectors to lower carbon intensity, and that hydrogen production utilizing thermal conversion with carbon capture and storage is the most cost-effective near-term opportunity for growth in the hydrogen industry. Thermal conversion is, I think, the only path forward towards a negative emissions hydrogen production if you couple CCS with biomass. And I also, again, think that hydrogen provides the most cost-effective, quickest, and best pathway to address emissions in the industrial sector.
Now, let's, if you will, merge the current and future economics. Here you're going to see I'm clearly a guy from Louisiana who has a certain perspective, but I think that perspective valid not just for Louisiana but for the entire United States. First, Louisiana is third in the nation in energy production and second in chemical production, but also we are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change with rising sea levels. My state has lost as much land as to comprise the entire state of Delaware, with relative sea level rise causing my coastline to literally disappear. This has many implications for my state, including the loss of wetlands, therefore the loss of a buffer of a hurricane hitting my coastline, causing a diminution of its force before it hits a city like New Orleans. We need our wetlands.
So, investing in hydrogen and the hydrogen future makes sense for Louisiana because, one, we have this issue. Two, we also have the infrastructure which already exists to produce and export low-cost, low-carbon-intensity hydrogen while also providing jobs. Louisiana frankly should be a hub. It has the existing infrastructure, the existing industrial base, we have the permitting regime in place, and we have ideal geology for carbon capture and storage. So, if hydrogen is the best way to pursue a lower-carbon future then I think Louisiana is one of the better places to do it.
Again, just to put a point on it, if we have the chemical plants producing the CO2 and we build the pipelines that take that CO2 to be sequestered or used in another product line, we are on the one hand preserving the jobs associated with all this activity, but two, we are allowing the continued production of the chemicals so essential to the modern way of life, and number three, we are mitigating carbon intensity by sequestering and/or using hydrogen as a power source.
So, let's just kind of make a couple points here. If I think that hydrogen is the near-term solution it also would give me a chance to highlight the bipartisan infrastructure deal we just passed. There is a significant investment in hydrogen, particularly in the thermal conversion realm. There's $8 billion for the development of hydrogen hubs, at least one of which must be a thermal conversion hub with a fossil fuel feed source. Two must be located in shale-heavy regions. There should be—by the way, there was extensive support in the bipartisan infrastructure bill for carbon capture technologies. It funds the demonstration, pilot plants, industrial decarbonization programs from the Energy Act of 2020, that which passed last Congress. It also includes the SCALE Act for carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure. This is a bill that Chris Coons and I wrote giving grants and low-interest loans to create this CO2 pipeline infrastructure. It also has permitting reform that will allow carbon dioxide produced onshore to be taken offshore and to be sequestered in offshore geologic formations, increasing the capacity, if you will, for all this activity.
So, let me conclude with some final statistics and points. The International Energy Agency pegs the cost of hydrogen production with CCS at $1.50 to $2.90 per kilogram of hydrogen. That's versus $3.00 to $7.50 for renewables. Secondly, the U.S. infrastructure is readily available for hydrogen produced through thermal conversion. We don't need to rely on international critical mineral supply chains, which are problematic in terms of their carbon intensity, in terms of their environmentally almost reckless way by which they are mined, and upon a human rights regime associated with the mining of these critical minerals, which is in contrast to United States values. And lastly, addressing climate requires immediate action that can be replicated or exported abroad. Hydrogen produced through thermal conversion with CCS is such an exportable, replicable, reproducible means by which we can export.
So, let me conclude by saying thank you for inviting me and to emphasize that I truly think that hydrogen through thermal conversion is the best way, near term, to lead on global carbon intensity reduction. Thank you for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.