powered - The Environment Report

Solar Within City Limits

Tom O'Neill (in suit) develops new businesses for Exelon, an energy company best known for its fleet of nuclear power stations. The Chicago solar project is the company's largest to date. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Forty acres of formerly abandoned industrial property on Chicago's South Side are prepped for the arrival of photovoltaic solar panels. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Exelon communications specialist Paul Elsberg stands beside a pylon that will support the Chicago project's solar panels. The photovoltaic panels hang between the pylons along an axis. The axis turns throughout the day, so the panels always face the sun directly. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

There’s a commercial-scale solar project
that’s getting some buzz in Chicago and
beyond. The builders promise to use up
some abandoned industrial space within
the city limits… and hope to provide
some local jobs. City governments across
the country like both of those ideas.
Shawn Allee looks at why this
urban solar project’s falling into place,
and whether it might get repeated across
the country:

Transcript

Carrie Austin is a Chicago alderman, and, as she says, she’s constantly dealing with problems unique to Chicago. But she’s convinced she’s got one problem a lot other cities face, too: what to do with vacant industrial land. She’s got 200 acres of it in her neighborhood.

“The environmental issues left from the company, left us with such devastation without any regards to human life. That has been our fight all these years. ”

Austin says, even with some clean-up in recent years, it’s been tough getting someone to come in with some work – and jobs.

“We’ve talked to FedEx, Kinkos and many other corporate offices. Even to Wal-Mart, bringing some of their distrubution to such a large piece of land. But to no avail.”

Austin says there’s a portion of this land she’s not so worried about now. The energy company, Exelon, is putting up solar panels on about 40 acres. And for the first time in a long time, there’s the sound of new construction there.

“This site’s been vacant for thirty years.”

That’s Tom O’Neill – he develops new businesses for Exelon. We’re walking along a padded-down field of soil where there used to be factory walls, machines, and concrete floors.

“What’s changed is you don’t see the brush and the shrubbery and there was a building that used to be here. The whole site is now graded and you can see signs of the construction where the foundations are going to come out. If you look further west, you can actually see the foundations going in for the solar panels, so it’s changed quite a bit.”

This is a transformation a lot of cities would envy, but I’m curious why Exelon’s doing this in Chicago and whether it’ll repeat it in other cities. On the first question, O’Neill says Exelon’s putting up the panels because it’s got a plan to cut its own carbon emissions.

“This project here will displace 30 million pounds of greenhouse gases per year. So it is a part of our low-carbon initiative.”

This Chicago solar project qualifies for federal loan guarantees and tax credits, but even with that, it’s not clear Exelon will make a profit. So, the question is: will Exelon repeat this? O’Neill says he’s hopeful.

“It is a demonstration project to show what can be done and with its success will come other successes.”

To get an industry-wide view of whether other cities might get urban solar farms, I talk with Nathaniel Bullard. He analyses solar power markets for New Energy Finance, a consulting firm. Bullard says cities are eager to re-use land that can be an eye-sore, or even cost a city money to maintain. For example, some southwestern cities have old landfills – and they’re planning to put solar farms on top.

“We’ve actually see those go much larger than what’s on the books right now for Exelon.”

Bullard says companies are taking a closer look at solar power because states are mandating utilities buy at least some. And the US Congress changed some tax laws recently. Exelon is taking advantage of that.

“First thing to note in the Exelon project is that it is Exelon itself which is going to own its project. If this was a year ago, they would be purchasing the electricity on contract. Now, with a change in policy, investor-owned utilities is allowed to own the asset itself and take advantage of tax benefit.”

Bullard says we’re likely to see more urban solar projects like Chicago’s – if the technology gets cheaper and government incentives stay in place.

Bullard has this joke about solar power that he swears is true. He says, in the solar industry, the strongest light does not come from sunshine – it comes from government policy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

New Nukes Stalled

One nuclear reactor was delayed because government regulators said they can't say whether the current design can withstand earthquakes and other disasters. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The power industry wants to create
loads of low-carbon electricity. To
make that happen, they want to build
more than two dozen nuclear reactors.
Shawn Allee reports there could be
delays for at least half of those:

Transcript

Westinghouse’s AP-1000 reactor was supposed to revive the nuclear industry. But recently, government regulators said they can’t say whether the current design can withstand earthquakes and other disasters.

Critics of nuclear power are pouncing on the news.

Henry Sokolski is with the Nonproliferation Policy Center. He says one government agency’s set to approve loan guarantees to build these reactors.

“If you do that, there won’t be much discipline in the industry to not screw up, there’ll be less.”

Westinghouse says it will provide the government with tests to prove its reactor is safe.

It’s not clear whether the government will delay final approval of the design.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Hawaii Picks Up Pricing Model

Hawaii has the highest energy prices in the nation. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Some states have been looking at
new ways to get more renewable energy
on the grid. This year, California,
Vermont, and now Hawaii implemented
a German-style pricing model that pays
people for the green electricity they
generate. Ben Markus reports:

Transcript

Hawaii imports fossil fuels – namely oil – to meet 90% of its energy needs –
including electricity.

“We’ve been saying for decades that this is foolish, and yet we haven’t changed. Well, now we’re
changing.”

Ted Peck is the state’s Energy Administrator. He says recent approval of
the new pricing model will help spark that change.

It offers a premium price for renewables. That makes it easier for solar and
wind companies to secure financing because they know what they’ll be
paid.

Mark Duda is president of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. He says
it’s not as wide-open as the German model, but it will make a difference.

“Many of the key design elements went in the direction that the solar industry wanted, and so we’re
definitely pleased with that.”

The big sticking point is setting what will be paid for renewables. And some
are worried about how this will affect ratepayers.

Hawaii already has the highest energy prices in the nation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Ben Markus.

Germany Sets Energy Example

Nearly 20 years ago, Germany passed a law requiring utility companies to pay homeowners more for creating green energy. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Many European countries are taking
climate change seriously. Since
1990, Germany has slashed their carbon
emissions nearly 23%, emerging
as a leader in green energy. Conrad
Wilson explains the country’s transformation
to an alternative energy leader:

Transcript

Nearly 20 years ago, Germany passed a law requiring utility companies to pay
homeowners more for creating green energy. Today that includes wind and
geothermal, but the big winner is solar.

Dr. Silke Karcher is a scientist at the German Ministry of Environment in Berlin.
She says the solar industry is growing, despite the lack of sun.

“One of the instruments, one of the legal instruments that we would really like to
export that has really been successful is the way that we’re supporting renewable
energies and electricity. We have a so-called ‘feed in tariff law,’ which mean that
wherever in Germany you produce renewable energy, you can feed it into the
grid and you get a specific price.”

And that policy has put Germany way ahead to the US. Even with all the rebates
and other recent incentives in the nation’s most pioneering green tech states, it
takes longer for homeowners in the US to pay off an investment in a solar array.

“What Germany does is that they say we’ll pay x amount of euros for every
kilowatt produced, period.”

That’s Jim Rarus, principal of InPower. It’s a Colorado-based solar installation
company. Rarus says rather than comparing renewable fuels to less expensive
fossil fuels, Germany accounts for the costs of pollution.

“They don’t compare certain technologies like solar, which obviously have a
higher cost basis, to other technologies like coal and natural gas, which have a
lower costs basis. So they’re paying a price that reflects the fact that it’s a little
more expensive to build a solar plant and allows the people that put it in to either
get their money back or to make a reasonable return.”

For homeowners investing in solar arrays in the US, the process can be
unpredictable and even frustrating. Johnny Weiss is executive director of Solar
Energy International. It’s a Colorado based nonprofit that trains people for
careers in the solar industry. He says the incentive system in the US is too
complex.

“Over here, it’s different and a more complicated system. We all have states that
are free to do their own incentive programs. We have incentives at the national
level. We have incentives at the local level. But the result is that it’s a bit
overwhelming for not just solar professionals, but the public as well. And it’s not a
consistent thing people can count on.”

Some communities in the US are trying out the European model. But the limited
government support in the US has driven competition as solar companies try to
make the energy source affordable. That’s something some fear isn’t happening
anymore in Germany.

Dr. Kurt Christian Scheel heads up the Department of Climate and Sustainable
Development for the German private industry association. Scheel worries that
government incentives have stifled innovation.

“I mean, let’s put it this way. Whoever produces solar panels in Germany has a
safe earning and no motivation in anyway to, and not enough competition to,
innovate and to make things better.”

But even if in the long-term some feel a feed-in tariff slows innovation and
growth, it’s proven that in a short period of time it can drive energy consumers to
become producers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Coal Will Not Go Quietly

In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made the unprecedented decision to deny a power company permits for a coal plant because of greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo courtesy of the Energy Information Administration)

Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:

Transcript

The Sunflower Electric Power Corporation had actually applied and been
approved for a permit to build a new coal plant in 2002. But, for whatever
reason, they let the permit expire. Seemed like no big deal at the time
– they figured they’d get another one whenever they turned in another
application.

Except that they didn’t. In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made
the unprecedented decision to deny the power company. Cindy Hertel is with
Sunflower.

“It would be like going for your drivers license, taking the drivers
test, passing it, then being denied your drivers license because you
don’t drive a Prius. Can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
And that’s what happened.”

Rod Bremby is the Secretary of Health and Environment in Kansas. He says
the state didn’t really change the rules on regulating CO2 because there
aren’t any rules on CO2. And since there’s no federal regulations,
Secretary Bremby instituted a state regulation. He said it would be
irresponsible not to regulate the gases causing climate change.

Stephanie Cole with the Sierra Club called it a watershed moment.

“We were excited, we were stunned – however, it wasn’t long after
that, legislators from Western Kansas started making comments that they
disapproved of Secretary Bremby’s decision and that they were going to
make legislative attempts to overturn the permit denial. So victory was
short-lived.”

Since then, the power company, Sunflower, has hired lobbyists. They’ve
helped legislators draft new bills to allow the coal-burning power plant.
The power company sued both the previous and current governor for civil
rights violations. For two years – nothing.

Then Kansas got a new governor – Mark Parkinson. Almost immediately
after he became governor last May, he cut a deal with Sunflower. Stop the
lawsuits. Build only one unit, not two or three. And, most importantly to
the Governor’s agenda, put in transmission lines to Colorado so that
Kansas can start exporting wind energy out of state.

Kansas is the third windiest state in the country. But it needs
infrastructure to get that wind-power to other states. And, in the
governor’s deal, power companies like Sunflower help build that
infrastructure.

Cole, with the Sierra Club, said the deal was very much a let-down.

“Because it is very troubling to many of us who have been involved in
this so long. It is such a disappointment.”

For a moment the battle seemed to be over. But, it wasn’t.

In July, Sunflower received a letter from the EPA asking them to submit a
new application for a permit. John Knodel is an environmental engineer
with the EPA.

“It’s not appropriate, in our mind, that they take an application that
was for three 700 MW units and simply say, ‘that was bigger, this project
is smaller.’ We say, ‘you have to go through a process and make it
very clear what this new project is all about.’”

Now that the EPA is stepping in, Sunflower & the Sierra Club are back to
square one.

The power company is expected to turn in its new application this fall.
The Sierra Club is expected to fight it. And Sunflower is expected to
fight back.

Cindy Hertel with Sunflower says the power company is just trying to keep
electricity bills low.

Hertel: “This is still in the best interest of our members.”

Browne: “This still makes sense economically?”

Hertel: “It still makes sense. What people need to know is that we are
cost biased, not fuel biased.”

Browne: “And, right now, for Sunflower, that means coal.”

But it might not be coal for very long.

The U.S. House passed a bill last winter that includes a hefty carbon tax
and incentives for renewable energy. A similar bill was recently
introduced in the Senate.

If it passes, Kansas might find its wind energy not only beats coal in
price, but wind-power could become the next big export for the state.

For The Environment Report, I’m Devin Browne.

A Look Into Coal Country

The filmmakers want more Americans to understand that when we flick on a light switch – it is not a meaningless act. It takes electricity. And that takes coal. (Photo courtesy of Coal Country)

When the Senate picks up debate
on the climate change bill, it
will be – in part – deciding the
future of coal as an energy source
in the U.S. About half the nation’s
electricity currently comes from
coal. And a lot of it comes from
the Appalachian region. A new
documentary film sets out to show
how mining for coal affects the people
who live in Coal Country. Julie Grant
spoke with the film’s producers:

Transcript

Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller set out to make the movie Coal Country
because they wanted to show how different people are affected by coal
mining.

They found lots of activists, and regular citizens, who would talk with
them. Plenty of people were willing to show the thick black water in their
toilet tanks. They wanted to show the black soot covering their cars.
They wanted to talk about the health problems they live with. And they all
blamed the coal industry.

Evans also wrote to coal supporters – to get their side of the story on
camera. The answer?

“No. That was their response. I sent out requests to the coal industry,
to coal companies and to suppliers of the coal industry.”

Evans brother is a coal miner. He supports mountain top removal.

(sound of explosions)

As we see in the movie, that’s when coal companies blow off the entire
top of a mountain to get to the coal. Many people consider it the most
polluting and environmentally devastating type of mining.

But Evans says not even her own brother would do an interview about it.

“And when I said, ‘why won’t you talk on camera? You feel so
passionately that coal is wonderful and mountaintop removal is actually for
the environment as well as the economy.’ And his response to me always
was, ‘oh I would never speak on camera without getting permission from
the company I work for.’”

The filmmakers heard that a lot. And no coal miners ever did get
permission to talk on camera.

In the movie, we do hear from Don Blankenship, head of Massey Energy. He
spoke at a public hearing about the need to ease environmental restrictions
on coal mining.

“We had nearly 800 employees up ‘til Friday. We had to lay 8 off. I
think that might be just the tip of the iceberg if we don’t our rules
changed how we mine in the state.”

Anti-coal activists at the public hearing explain how the coal companies
use that kind of intimidation to control miners.

“I think people are scared that they will lose their jobs and be flipping
burgers. You look out and that’s all you see. You see mining and
flipping burgers. And, I argue, that the coal companies want it that way.
They want that to be the only option. That’s the only way they could get
support for how they treat their workers and how they treat this land.
This would never happen in a place that wasn’t poor. Never.”

In the movie, some coal miners stand up at the public meeting to defend the
companies they work for. One explains the coal industry has provided him a
good salary.

Miner One: “For the last 14 years, the coal industry has supported myself
and my wife and my 3 children.”

Miner Two: “When the last one of you so-called environmentalists leave
the state, when the rest of us leave for North Carolina, turn out the
lights. Oh, wait a minute, there won’t be no lights. No coal, no
lights.”

(music)

The filmmakers want more Americans to understand that when we flick on a
light switch – it is not a meaningless act. It takes electricity. And
that takes coal.

And, as anti-coal activist Judy Bonds says in the movie, coal is tearing
apart West Virginia.

“It is a civil war; it’s families against families. It’s brother
against brother.”

Or – in the case of filmmaker Mari Lynn-Evans – brother against
sister.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

A New Look at Old Dams

There are approximately 80,000 dams in the United States - among them is the Hoover Dam in Nevada. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

There’s been a lot of talk about climate change in Washington D.C. lately. Whether it’s a new law, or tighter regulations, the cost of burning dirty fossil fuels for energy is likely to go up. As Mark Brush reports that has some people taking a second look at old dams:

Transcript

There are about 80,000 dams around the country. A lot of them were built a long time ago. And, as they get old, communities have to decide whether to spruce them up – or tear them down.

But some experts are saying these smaller, old dams might be worth keeping.

Ron Corso is with the United States Society on Dams.

“There’s enough sites out there to dramatically increase the amount of hydropower that exists today, and the FERC has more applications in front of it than it has in twenty years.”

The FERC is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It’s the government agency that oversees dams.

Corso says communities are weighing the economic costs before repairing or retro-fitting an old dam.

And if the dam is small – say under 20 feet tall – Corso says it often is not worth the cost.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Keeping It Close to Home

Baylor Radtke bags up anemometers for the climbers to carry up the tower. The student crew placed three anemometers at different heights, along with two wind direction indicators. The data is recorded and analyzed to estimate average wind speed. Researcher Mike Mageau is getting detailed information on several towers up and down the North Shore of Lake Superior. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Jonathan Morales determines how high up he is on the tower at Moose Mountain. He wants to place an anemometer at 30 meters, 45 meters, and 60 meters above the ground. Data will be logged for at least a year; the information will help determine whether it's feasible to build wind generators on the North Shore of Lake Superior. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
The spectacular views on the North Shore's Sawtooth Range are a sign of good wind speeds. Researcher Mike Mageau has clocked average speeds of 15 to 20 miles an hour. A citizens group in Grand Marais is trying to determine the feasibility of installing a wind generator that could supply close to half the power the city needs. Similar research is underway at other North Shore communities. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Howard Hedstrom is a fourth-generation owner of Hedstrom Lumber in Grand Marais. He'd like to sell chipped bark for use in a planned local biomass district heating system, instead of shipping it to markets many miles away. His waste bark could supply as much as half the fuel the burner would need. The other half could come from forest thinning, and from clearing done around homes to protect them from wild fires. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

People concerned about energy are
getting more and more interested
in producing their own. Stephanie
Hemphill reports on an effort to
harvest the wind, and other natural
resources, to power a community:

Transcript

(sound of climbing)

Three students are getting ready to climb a TV tower on Moose
Mountain on the north shore of Lake Superior. They’ll put up three
anemometers – little cups that spin in the wind and measure how fast
it’s blowing.

As they deploy their climbing equipment, their professor, Mike
Mageau, keeps asking if they have enough safety gear. He seems a
little anxious.

“Two of them are mountain climbers. So they seem to think this will
be no big deal.” (laughs)

Mageau teaches at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He’s been
measuring the wind on the high ridge that runs along the Lake
Superior shoreline.

“If you look at the statewide wind maps, they don’t give us credit for
having any wind along the North Shore of Lake Superior. But Grand
Portage was interested in wind, and they did some monitoring and we
helped them. This was years ago.”

That’s the Grand Portage Band of Ojibway Indians. Mageau got a
grant to install monitoring equipment up and down Lake Superior
shoreline.

“And we found 15 to 20 mile-an-hour average wind speeds at the
sites.”

That’s about the same as the best wind sites in Iowa, where huge
wind farms spread across the landscape.

Mageau doesn’t advocate a big wind farm here. Instead, the idea is
to put up one windmill for each community along the shore. One big
turbine could supply roughly half the electricity each town uses.

He knows some people are nervous about this. The North Shore of
Lake Superior is beautiful, and no one wants to ruin the scenery. It’s
also an important route for migrating birds. There’s concern that
birds could fly into the spinning blades. A separate group of
researchers is studying the migration routes.

“Are they flying close to the lake, along the peaks, just inland or
lakeside of the peak, where are they flying? So hopefully when we
pick a wind site we’ll stay away from the birds.”

If a wind tower is ever built here, the power would go to the town of
Grand Marais Minnesota, 20 miles north. And it would fit in with other
projects local folks are working on, to become more energy self-
sufficient.

Buck Benson owns the local hardware store. He says he and his
friends, George and Lonnie, hatched the idea while they were fishing.

“We were grumbling about all this stuff, ‘what can we really do.’ And,
when we came back home, George kept prodding us, ‘you know what
we talked about,’ so we formed a little group. And I think we’ve done
good work since we started this organization.”

The group has been researching various ideas about how to produce
energy locally. One team is pursuing that windmill idea we heard
about. Another project is a little closer to being built: they want to
burn the wood chips from a local sawmill in a central heating system
for the town.

(sound of buzzing)

The chips would come from Hedstrom Lumber mill. Howard
Hedstrom says the mill sells bark chipped off the trees. But he has to
haul it miles away to sell it.

“By the time you pay the freight, there’s not much left. And if it could
be used locally, why not use it locally and save all that transportation
cost.”

The city of Grand Marais has applied for a federal grant to pay for half
the cost of the boiler.

Communities across the country are looking to use what they’ve got
around them, instead of importing energy from a big coal or nuclear
plant miles away.

It helps keep money close to home, and it could be better for the
earth.

For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Report Says Conservation Saves Big

A new national report from a business

consulting group says energy efficiency

could be a better solution to meeting our

energy needs than building new power plants.

Shawn Allee reports that new finding

supports the Obama administration’s call for more

energy conservation:

Transcript

A new national report from a business

consulting group says energy efficiency

could be a better solution to meeting our

energy needs than building new power plants.

Shawn Allee reports that new finding

supports the Obama administration’s call for more

energy conservation:

The McKinsey consulting group crunches all kinds of numbers for corporations.

It’s latest report suggests its cheaper to improve efficiency in heaters, homes, and electronics than it is to build new power plants.

It’s a welcome message to Lisa Jackson.

Jackson heads the US Environmental Protection Agency.

“I’m optimistic about Americans, who have so much common sense, saying, listen, the best energy is the energy we never have to use. It’s cheaper, it certainly means that we can invest in ourselves.”

The McKinsey report finds energy efficiency is economical in the long run, but it’ll take millions of consumers and businesses to boost power efficiency all at once to make a difference.

The authors recommend government and banks find new ways to finance home improvements.

They also recommend stronger efficiency labels on household electronics.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Bumpy Road Ahead for Hydrogen Cars

Sysco - a major food distributor - is part of a year-long government funded project. They're running seventeen of their forklifts using hydrogen powered fuel cells. (Photo by Mark Brush)
This is how the hydrogen arrives at the Sysco warehouse in Michigan. The hydrogen is made in Megog, Quebec. (Photo by Mark Brush)

Six years ago, President Bush proposed to end our addiction to oil by building a hydrogen
economy. At the time, driving a hydrogen powered car didn’t seem that far off. But today, the
reality of mass produced hydrogen powered cars has hit some bumps in the road. Mark Brush
looks at the challenges ahead:

Transcript

It’s all about the fuel cell. The cell converts hydrogen gas into electricity that can power up a
motor. And when that’s done – the only thing that comes out of the tail pipe is crystal, clean
water.

So there’s a lot of enthusiasm to build hydrogen powered cars. If you live in Southern California,
you can drive a hydrogen powered car right now.

(sound of a hydrogen car commercial)

But you can’t buy this car. You can only lease it. And you have to have a pretty good map.
There are only 2 places where you can fill the car up with hydrogen.

And that highlights just one of the challenges facing the hydrogen car right now. There’s no
infrastructure – no network of gas stations – to support it.

Steven Chu heads up the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy.

“It’s an infrastructure that is as extensive as the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel. And that
doesn’t come overnight.”

Chu wants to eliminate all the research money for hydrogen powered cars and trucks. He says
there are too many big problems to solve. There’s the infrastructure problem. Fuel cells are
expensive. The cheapest way to make hydrogen right now releases pollution. And there are
problems with storing the gas.

In an interview with MIT’s Technology Review, Energy Secretary Chu referred to these problems
as the four miracles. And that didn’t go over too well with some people.

“A miracle? Really? How many miracles have you seen? I’m not sure I’ve seen a real miracle in
my life.”

Levi Thompson directs the Hydrogen Energy Technology Laboratory at the University of
Michigan.

He says talking about these problems as miracles sends the wrong message. He admits, there
are some big puzzles to solve. But he’s convinced scientists can solve them.

“If you believe this is the savior, that this is going to transform the way we do things, I think you
have a responsibility to invest – even though that you see that it’s far behind.”

Thompson says the ultimate goal for a hydrogen economy is to get the hydrogen from water
using electricity from renewable resources like wind, solar, and hydro-power. So you get the
clean burning gas you’re looking for.

It can be done today, but it’s expensive. Thompson thinks it’ll get cheaper as alternative sources
of electricity become more widespread.

The Energy Department doesn’t want to give up on hydrogen research altogether. Secretary Chu
says fuel cells do make sense on a small scale – like to power fork lifts in a warehouse.

(sound of a warehouse and forklift)

Here at this Sysco warehouse in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a mini hydrogen experiment is
underway.

Sysco is a major food distributor. This warehouse is part of a year-long government funded
project. They’re running seventeen of their forklifts using hydrogen powered fuel cells made by a
company called Plug Power.

Darin VanDuyn is with Sysco. He says, mostly, they’ve had a good experience with these fuel
cells.

“We’ve had about 80 hours of lost time due to repair – minor failures, things like that – but nothing
major has disrupted their operation.”

VanDuyn says the company hasn’t decided yet whether they’ll move forward with the fuel cell
program. But policy makers say real-world experiments like these move us closer to mass
produced hydrogen vehicles.

Even though the Obama Administration wants to cut funding for hydrogen powered cars and
trucks, Congress holds the purse – and has the final say. So far, it looks like Congress will
continue to fully fund the research.

Automakers say the ups and downs of federal funding don’t affect their plans. Several
companies say they’ll start selling hydrogen powered cars in 6 to 8 years – and they’ll let the
market decide the fate of the hydrogen economy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Tag: powered

Solar Within City Limits

Transcript

Related Links

New Nukes Stalled

Transcript

Related Links

Hawaii Picks Up Pricing Model

Transcript

Related Links

Germany Sets Energy Example

Transcript

Related Links

Coal Will Not Go Quietly

Transcript

Related Links

A Look Into Coal Country

Transcript

Related Links

A New Look at Old Dams

Transcript

Related Links

Keeping It Close to Home

Transcript

Related Links

Report Says Conservation Saves Big

Transcript

Related Links

Bumpy Road Ahead for Hydrogen Cars

Transcript

Related Links