Search

While the media is focused on the Arctic’s future – and the impact climate change could have on energy exploration, shipping lines and international relations – the opposite polar region is also undergoing rapid change.

Late last year, four New York Times journalists joined a Columbia University team to witness the changes underway across the earth’s fifth-largest and southernmost continent. What scientists showed them was shocking, as they described a potentially apocalyptic future once thought best suited for a Hollywood B-film.

In a worst-case scenario, much of Antarctica’s mass could break up, which could cause sea-level rise to surge as much as six feet by the end of this century. That's twice the increase that climate scientists agreed upon only a few years ago.

That outlook should worry some of the world’s largest companies, many of which centralize their operations in global megacities such as New York, Shanghai, Mumbai and Sydney – not to mention, of course, the chaos that would ensue as coastal populations scramble to move farther inland and to higher ground.

What the Times observed in Antarctica corresponds with what a team of British researchers concluded about changes going on across the continent in a paper published last week.

Antarctica is becoming greener, and in a way that should concern both environmentalists and economists. As more Antarctic ice melts and more land is exposed, biological activity increases; and in the case of this region, the beneficiary is moss. The rate of moss growth on Antarctica could be as much as five times higher than before the 1950s.

As Nicola Davis of the Guardian surmised, a warmer Antarctica could spur more business, as in more visitors to the continent. The problem is that it would be highly likely that more invasive species could take root across the region, causing an ecological transformation with yet unknown consequences.

The researchers visited by the Times journalists acknowledge that their research poses even more questions, which requires more study and of course, more dollars. But that $25 million that American and British scientists seek to understand more clearly the long term effects of the changes occurring in Antarctica comprise a cost-effective insurance plan if governments and the private sector are going to work together in order to develop secure climate action plans.

What may seem like a problem 9,000 miles away may seem esoteric now. But sea level rise will disrupt industries that often do not consider climate change in their long term planning; the real estate and insurance sectors, which of course are intertwined, are just two industries that come to mind. Coupled with the emissions that the transportation, agriculture and manufacturing sectors are contributing to the world, the research going on in Antarctica now shows that all of the decisions we make are related – and that progress on renewables, energy storage and more sustainably grown food can not occur fast enough.

At a time when companies are trying to stand out not only in the market, but in how they are responsible corporate citizens, Antarctica could be that last frontier. Funding research in Antarctica is for now, the fast answer, of course. But there is room for creativity here. The consultancy Bain & Company, for example, has been leading occasional expeditions to Antarctica for several years now, a program inspired by one employee’s life-changing experience visiting the region in 2010. Raising awareness is certainly one key to increasing climate action in the global business community.

Does any other company have ideas on how to increase awareness of threats to Antarctica to both consumers and businesses? After all, their future viability is at stake.

Image credit: U.S. Department of State/Flickr

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to eliminate a key rule that shapes the Internet as we know it today. And millions of net neutrality advocates are springing into action.

The FCC proposal would enable Internet service providers to block or "throttle" selected websites, establish tiered rates, and otherwise interfere with the equal-access principle that framed Internet service for a generation.

Much of the organizing around the net neutrality issue is occurring online, a circumstance that hammers home the vital role that net neutrality plays in modern democracy.

What's so bad about "utility style" regulation of the Internet?

The opponents of net neutrality generally argue that the current rules treat Internet service providers like regulated utilities, stifling investment and limiting consumer choice.

The FCC made that point in its official announcement, which came in a press release titled "FCC Proposes Ending Utility-Style Regulation Of The Internet First Step Toward Restoring Internet Freedom, Promoting Investment, Innovation and Choice."

The agency elaborated in the first paragraph:

"The Federal Communications Commission today took the first step toward restoring Internet freedom and promoting infrastructure investment, innovation, and choice by proposing to end utility-style regulation of broadband Internet access service."

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reiterated that view in his statement supporting the proposal:

"Today, we propose to repeal utility-style regulation of the Internet. We propose to return to the Clinton-era light-touch framework that has proven to be successful. And we propose to put technologists and engineers, rather than lawyers and accountants, at the center of the online world."

Did you see what he just did there? Pai starts his argument in the middle, without first establishing the basic premise -- namely, the implication that "utility-style" regulation is a bad thing.

"Utility-style regulation" is not necessarily a bad thing in an industrialized democracy. Regulated utilities are a means to an end. For example, the end goal of ensuring affordable water, sewer and electricity service across a broad swath of society is to protect public health and safety for everyone, wealthy and not-wealthy alike.

For that matter, Pai makes no effort to explain what the "center of the online world" is in terms of who gets to make decisions at the corporate level. It's not clear how he proposes to "put" technologists and engineers there, and what will they do once they arrive.

No, really: The FCC argument against net neutrality does not hold up

The dissenting view, provided by FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn, implies that Pai's argument is resting on a shaky premise.

Clyburn argues that the case against "utility-style regulation" amounts to the same discredited trickle-down theory of economics popularized by President Ronald Reagan. (The trickle-down theory holds that financial policies benefiting the wealthy will indirectly benefit everyone else.):

"Today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, more appropriately known as the Destroying Internet Freedom NPRM, deeply damages the ability of the FCC to be a champion of consumers and competition in the 21st century," Clyburn wrote.

"It contains a hollow theory of trickle-down internet economics, suggesting that if we just remove enough regulations from your broadband provider, they will automatically improve your service, pass along discounts from those speculative savings, deploy more infrastructure with haste, and treat edge providers fairly."

For the record, the trickle-down economic theory still holds considerable sway over Republican thought leaders, even though it has been soundly discredited by researchers including experts with the International Monetary Fund.

Ars Technica reporter Jon Brodkin provides a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to the FCC proposal and to Pai's statement.

In addition to framing an argument without establishing a premise, Brodkin says Pai also got his facts wrong. For example, characterizing Clinton-era rules as a "light touch" is the opposite of FCC Internet policy under Clinton, Brodkin argued:

"In reality, the Clinton-era FCC established far stricter requirements than anything in the current net neutrality rules," he wrote on Ars Technica last week. "At the time, line-sharing requirements allowed any company to offer Internet service over the same wires, giving consumers far more broadband choices."

Check out Brodkin's full article for more insight into the issues. Clyburn's statement is also a must-read for personal stories about the impact of net neutrality on daily life.

Once more unto the breach

An active and informed citizenry has already mobilized in a powerful series of reactions against Donald Trump administration policies on immigration, health care and climate change, and the Internet served as a key enabler and force multiplier.

Back in 2010, TriplePundit founder Nick Aster described the importance of an equal Internet platform for the U.S. democratic form of government, which provides the media -- the "fourth estate" -- with a vital role:

"The reason that you’re able to read TriplePundit right now, along with thousands of other small, independent publications is because the Internet remains an essentially unregulated, free market for ideas and conversation. No website can be given priority over another in terms of access or download speed."

Aster also emphasized the importance of net neutrality to businesses:

"If your company has a website, then your company is a publisher, or even a media company. Tom Foremski famously attests that in today’s world, ALL companies are media companies and should think of themselves that way. All of this publishing takes place in a new, modern commons known as the Internet."

TriplePundit's Marissa Rosen summed it up back in 2015, when the current net neutrality platform was established for the Internet:

"Open and free communication has always been critical for any social movement and, indeed, democracy itself. Net neutrality is an often misunderstood issue facing communication in the 21st century; it has come under fire from political and corporate interests and many advocates are fighting to ensure its survival."

The FCC is accepting comments on the new proposal until August 16, so now is your chance to weigh in.

The docket number is 17-108, and you can find a link to the comments section at fcc.gov/ecfs. As of this writing, the agency already received more than 2 million comments -- although critics say many came from bots.

If you're at a loss for words, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has set up a "Dear FCC" website that provides a boilerplate and tips on writing your comment. You can also sign the Free Press petition at Save the Internet.

Most importantly, contact your representatives by phone, email or post card (letters may not be advisable due to security concerns involving sealed envelopes).

Whether Democrat or Republican, all legislators need to know how important it is to ensure that Internet competition is fair, equitable and beneficial to consumers, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions and businesses of all sizes, no matter how small.

Image: courtesy of Electronic Frontier Foundation at dearfcc.org

Save

Save

Save

Save

A new analysis finds that India and China are on pace to overachieve their Paris Agreement climate pledges, a welcome sign for global climate action.

This is a remarkable change. For years, China was the bogeyman. Even though the country is, still, far behind the U.S. and Europe in terms of historical emissions, the right wing used the country's growth as an excuse for inaction at home. In fact, China's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol was a key reason the U.S. withdrew from the agreement during the George W. Bush regime.

And there was some justification – it was hard to imagine developing countries cutting emissions any time soon. They had to grow – and felt they had the right to emit as well-off northern countries did for decades.

“Five years ago, the idea of either China or India stopping — or even slowing — coal use was considered an insurmountable hurdle, as coal-fired power plants were thought by many to be necessary to satisfy the energy demands of these countries,” Bill Hare of Climate Analytics said in a press statement.

But, amazingly, both countries are growing and expanding energy usage, while slowing emissions growth far faster than anticipated, according to data from Climate Action Tracker.

“Recent observations show they are now on the way toward overcoming this challenge,” Hare added.

How? Part of it is an historic shift away from coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. China has, essentially, shut down the construction of new coal plants and is considering plans to shut down old ones. India, which was widely expected to follow the path of the U.S. and China as a coal-burning giant, is also seeing funding for coal plants dry up.

The reason? One word: Renewables.

“In the last 10 years, the energy market has transformed: The price of renewable energy from wind and solar has dropped drastically,” Yvonne Deng of Ecofys said in a press statement. “Renewables are now cost-competitive and being built at a much faster rate than coal-fired power plants.”

China and India are both coming to a science-based understanding: If they emit like we did, they will face horrific climate impacts. Moreover, going green is now economically feasible and, frankly, beneficial. Connecting off-grid villages to solar panels is far cheaper than expanding coal energy in India, and it brings electricity to more people.

Unfortunately, little science-based policymaking is happening in Washington, D.C. It won't matter, because U.S. emissions are also dropping faster than expected, and states like California are stepping up to take on a huge global leadership role. The coming solar boom in Florida is also poised make a significant dent in our emissions. We're slowly turning the corner and heading toward a global clean-energy economy.

The question is: Will China and India go so fast they'll leave America behind? And can we, together, cut emissions fast enough to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 Celsius, as scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change? For that, China and India must play an even bigger leadership role than ever before. And they already have a head start.

Image credit: Wing via Wikimedia Commons

For months, U.S. President Donald Trump assured the nation that his administration’s pro-business policies would help boost the economy. The loosening of federal regulations designed to serve as an economic bulwark for consumer protections, the dismantling of environmental regulations, and (attempted) restrictions to legal and illegal immigration have done little to shake up the economy or deter investors' confidence.

And Trump is not afraid to take credit for that resiliency, reminding American voters that he promised a strong economy under his leadership and was now implementing policies that would bolster consumer spending and business growth.

But last week, the impact of that self-proclaimed "Trump effect" came home to roost. With the intensifying investigations into alleged Trump-Russia ties and Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey (who was leading the investigations into his administration), the U.S. stock markets issued their own edict about just what political chaos in Washington could mean for the economy.

On Wednesday, as news emerged suggesting that Trump may have tried to directly impede or influence a federal investigation, stocks on the nation’s three indexes dropped 1.7 percent, erasing in one day most of the gains seen since Trump took office. The S&P alone saw a 370-point drop on Wednesday.

Just as significant was that the free-fall took global markets with it. Japan's Nikkei stock market registered the worst loss, tumbling more than 2 percent in one day, or 414.5 points.

Since then, many questioned just what could happen if Trump is unable to meet his campaign promises. Specifically, what would happen if that "Trump effect" transformed into a Trump impeachment?

The answer to that question is hard to find, say analysts, who point out that there isn't a lot of historical data about what happens to the stock market when a president, lauded (by some) for his ambitious plans to improve business opportunities both domestically and abroad, faces possible impeachment.

The year and a half prior to Richard Nixon's impeachment in 1974 is often used as a gauge to figure out just how much influence a scandal may have on investors' confidence, historians say.

"Wall Street was already mired in one of the worst bear markets in history" by the time the news broke about Nixon's pending impeachment, wrote Times reported Taylor Tepper. January 1973 to August 1974 was a whirlwind of events that included an oil crisis and global market shakeups that extended beyond the Nixon administration's own catastrophic demise.

What may ultimately impact the markets isn't whether the president of the United States is impeached, but whether he is able to deliver on the sizable promises he made for the country. So far, we have a consumer-friendly healthcare program that turns out won't cover everyone and a border wall that has proven to be economically challenging and a political mine field to boot. Not delivering on a comprehensive tax reform -- the lynchpin of his presidency -- because of political chaos in his administration could signal a lack of faith in his ability to set the country on a new economic course as he promised.

David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff and Associates, points out that investing around what's happening in Washington and the promises of a campaign trail is never a good idea.

"Despite my advice not to invest around Trumponomics, people did it in any event and that is what is being unwound now,” Rosenberg said. 

Still, that doesn't mean more trouble for the stock market, say some analysts, who point out that the markets are somewhat used to scandals and chaos in Washington. Others, like BK Asset Management strategist Barry Schlossberg, believe the "muted" response from Wednesday's fall indicates that the markets already "assume"  the worst: that Trump will be impeached. Either way, Trump's ability to stay on top of his game and deliver on a tax reform that helped get him elected will likely have a large say in how the stock markets fare as an increasingly more complex federal investigation takes shape in Washington. Wikimedia images: NYSE - Shelbytyre; Donald Trump on campaign trail: Gage Skidmore

The current debate over immigration, and the inertia over developing a sound guest worker policy that dragged during the previous two presidential administrations, has ignored the fundamental truth about the U.S. economy: Immigration and innovation together is the foundation of growth.

Immigrants come to America, where they drive innovation. And if your definition of innovation casts a wide net, that immigration varies from cutting-edge companies in Silicon Valley, to the revitalized communities that keep appearing in the Rust Belt. “Immigration is at the heart of U.S. competitiveness,” wrote Mohamed Ali, who arrived to the U.S. from Guyana in 1981 and is now CEO of Carbonite, a data protection and storage company based in Boston.

The good news is that more CEOs are speaking out on immigration and how it benefits their companies and the economy. And these are not just leaders of tech companies, the complaints of which are often dismissed as their companies are often reliant on the H1-B visa program, long a target of President Donald Trump and his supporters. The problem, however, is that too many CEOs are willing to score points with the president as they announce new job increases in his presence – even though many of these new hiring decisions were made long before he moved into the White House.

Nevertheless, the din is becoming louder. Take Indra Nooyi, the CEO of PepsiCo, who was among many leaders recently recognized by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations (NECO), a group that seeks to promote respect for immigrants and takes part in the upkeep of Ellis Island. Nooyi is an advisor to the Trump White House, but like many business leaders has been boxed in by the administration by the tenor of its immigration policies. Upon receiving her NECO award, Nooyi reportedly said:

“All of us are equal and all of us have the right to reach for our dreams. That’s the promise that brought waves of immigrants to our shores in search of opportunity, from the earliest days of the republic to today. And that’s the promise that brought me and my husband here so many decades ago.”

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase is another CEO who received criticism for serving as an advisor to President Trump. He's now traveling with the president on his first overseas tour. In an interview last month with Business Insider, Dimon implored the White House to develop an immigration policy that is more welcoming to people who are willing to come to the U.S., work hard and pay their share of taxes. “I think immigration has been one of the vital things about the growth of America,” he told reporter Matt Turner.

And last week, Randall Stephenson, the chairman and CEO of AT&T, told an audience that immigration is “vital” to ensuring the U.S. still has a vibrant middle class. “If you have a (U.S.) population that is slow-growth, you have to have a vibrant population of immigrants,” he said, explaining that the skilled labor they bring to the U.S. helps the country maintain its competitive advantage.

Such words are only the beginning, but they are important. Many Americans have a skepticism of Wall Street, but they are often receptive to listening to business leaders, as they often embody what is known as the American Dream. More CEOs need to highlight the stubborn facts of the U.S. economy – that automation is the biggest killer of jobs, and that immigrants who move to this country are critical in investing in ideas that quite often turn out into new jobs for Americans.

Image credit: Christian Rondeau/Flickr

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) released a scorecard exclusively for members of Congress who sit on caucuses representing people of color, another sign of the now accepted reality that environmentalism and racial issues are deeply interconnected.

LCV found scored of most of theses caucuses was quite well: Members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American received an average score of 98 percent, followed closely by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“Our allies in Congress beat back the vast majority of attacks on urgent environmental protections and stood up for the well-being of communities of color experiencing the consequences of climate change,” Jennifer Allen, LCV senior vice President for community and civic engagement, said in a press statement.

“With only a few exceptions, Congressional members who are people of color and who represent communities of color are champions of environmental protections, fighting climate change and advancing public health.”

Those exceptions? Members of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, which happens to be controlled by the Republican Party. High-profile Republicans including Rep. Devin Nunes of California are counted as members. And while climate denial in the GOP is most often associated with anti-environmental champions such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Pat Toomey, it also extends to representatives who are, frankly, ignoring their constituents. Marco Rubio, who represents Florida, a low-lying coastal state which could face massive devastation from climate change, is directly hurting Floridians by voting against environmental policies on Capital Hill. Rubio is not a member of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, but Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart -- a member of the conference who also represents Florida -- is in the same boat.

What's positive is that environmentalists are taking racial justice seriously -- and with good reason. Evidence shows that environmental degradation hurts people of color, and immigrant communities, first. They tend to live closer to factories that pollute or near coal ash damns, which are known to break. Moreover, many of the early impacts of climate change will also hit these communities first.

In fact, LCV's scorecard is the latest in a long series of moves by environmental groups to take racial issues more seriously. This included the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth standing alongside Black Lives Matter protesters during the height of tensions around police violence last year. All three groups have also made working with communities of colors a priority.

This was not always the case sadly – but it's a welcome, if long overdue change. Only by working together can we bring about change – both for the environment and those communities who are impacted by not only climate and degradation, but a unjust social system well. The LCV scorecard will be a valuable tool in determining the true allies in Congress.

Image credit: Mark Klotz via Flickr

Earlier this month, House Republicans voted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. While these lawmakers trumpet their vote and bad mouth the ACA, there is something they need to understand: It expanded healthcare coverage. And that is particularly true in California among certain groups, according to new research. 

Self-employed Californians and those working for small businesses saw their healthcare coverage expanded under the Affordable Care Act. The University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center analyzed data from the California Health Interview Survey and found big coverage gains among self-employed Californians and employees of small businesses between 2013 and 2015. While 1 in 3 workers in both groups lacked health insurance in 2013, only 1 in 5 could say the same in 2015.

About 21.4 percent of self-employed Californians and 20 percent of small business employees relied on ACA coverage in 2015, either through Covered California’s subsidized coverage or Medi-Cal expansion.

Small businesses are the backbone of California's economy. Companies with 50 employees or less made up 91.5 percent of all businesses in California in 2015. More than 60 percent of California businesses employ only three to nine workers, while an additional 30.9 percent employ 10 to 49 workers. Both Covered California and the Medi-Cal expansion have been good for employees of small businesses because small business employees rely more heavily on both.

Small businesses with employees enrolled in the Medi-Cal expansion include restaurants, family-owned motels, independent grocery stores and drugstores, gas stations, clothing stores, and tax, accounting, bookkeeping and legal firms, according to UC Berkeley. California’s small-group health insurance market was limited to businesses with 50 employees until Jan. 1, 2016 when the small-group rules changed to allow businesses with 100 employees or less to enroll. An estimated 6.3 million Californians work for businesses with 100 employees or less.

There is a reason why small business employees rely more heavily on Medi-Cal and Covered California insurance: They make less money than employees of larger businesses.

Employees of small businesses were about twice as likely to have low household income, UC Berkeley found. Small businesses are also less likely to offer employer-sponsored health insurance. In 2015, over 90 percent of businesses with more than 50 employees offered coverage. Only 46.5 percent of businesses with three to nine workers and 66.2 percent of companies with 10 to 49 workers offered coverage. 

While self-employed Californians still have a high uninsurance rate, this rate declined from 33.8 percent in 2013 to 17.9 percent in 2015, according to UC Berkeley. That is the greatest drop in uninsurance rate among Californians.

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion in California allowed adults with income levels at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level without children to become eligible for Medi-Cal. Individuals with incomes at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level under the ACA who either lack coverage through an employer or with unaffordable employer-sponsored insurance are eligible for subsidies through Covered California. Those subsidies helped make healthcare coverage more affordable for the self employed. A much larger proportion of self employed Californians were in Covered California in 2015 than other workers eligible for subsidies.

Repeal of the ACA would leave many uninsured

If Congress does repeal the ACA, many of these coverage gains would disappear, UC Berkeley predicts.

The House bill that would repeal the ACA, the American Healthcare Act, would reduce tax credits for older adults while increasing them for younger adults in 2018 and 2019, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's analysis. By 2020, it would replace the ACA's income-based tax credits with flat tax credits adjusted for age.

Premium tax credits make insurance through Covered California affordable for lower-income Californians. Without them, insurance premiums would soar. For example, the ACA Spotlight estimated that a 27 year old in Alameda County earning $17,820 a year and enrolled in the second lowest cost silver plan would see his or her monthly go up to $340 a month without a PTC, a 467 percent increase from the $60 a month they pay with a PTC.

As it stands now, the AHCA would also convert Medicaid funding to a per-capita allotment and limit growth starting in 2020. The Commonwealth Fund predicts that if Medicaid funding experienced big reductions through block rants or per-capita caps, the effects would be “significant.” States would have to reduce the number of people served by Medicaid to make up for financial losses, and that would cause the number of uninsured to increase.

Image credit: ThoroughlyReviewed/Flickr

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads, and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

Over a decade ago, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced plans for a “hydrogen highway.” He dreamed of converting the day's most popular vehicles -- SUVs and Hummers -- into zero-emission cars powered by hydrogen. But he proved to be ahead of his time, and the idea quickly languished.

But thanks to new technologies and renewed interest from the public and private sectors, the hydrogen economy is in the headlines once again. And this time it may be for real.

For those of you new to the topic, here's a quick rundown: Fuel cell electric vehicles are a lot like their battery-powered cousins. Both run on electricity. And both are zero-emissions at the tailpipe.

But standard electric vehicles must be charged, while fuel cell vehicles can create energy on-the-go from a chemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen. Fuel cell cars can be filled with hydrogen almost as quickly as a gasoline-powered car.

A hydrogen reaction can also be used as an energy source beyond the transportation sector. The only hitch is that the main source of hydrogen is still natural gas. This presents a problem for those seeking a truly low-impact form of power. But it also leaves the door open for renewable energy innovations that intersect with the hydrogen economy.

These trends and more are brining the hydrogen economy closer to scale -- and to a renewable energy future.

1. Fuel cell passenger cars inch toward the mainstream

Compared to traditional EVs, fuel cell vehicles proved slow to catch on in the mainstream passenger vehicle market. They're still more expensive to produce, and fueling stations are few and far between. But collaborative efforts to deploy a fueling network and bring down the price of fuel cells may soon change that.

Toyota was first to the jump with its mass-market fuel cell Mirai. 3p economic correspondent Bill Roth test-drove the Mirai at Sustainable Brands 2016, and even compared it side-by-side with the all-electric Tesla Model S.

Another Japanese automaker was quick on its heels: Honda began delivering its fuel cell Clarity at the end of last year and made headlines for a big-ticket partnership with American auto giant General Motors. The two will collaborate to mass-produce hydrogen fuel cells for EVs, with the aim of bringing down price.

With innovation happening quickly in the hydrogen vehicle space, 12 new fuel cell vehicles are poised to hit the market within the next three years, Business Insider reported this week.

2. Fuel cell vehicles take on deliveries

Logistics giant UPS will begin testing fuel cell delivery trucks later this year. The first-of-its-kind pilot will put fuel cell trucks on the company's demanding delivery routes, forcing them to meet — or beat — the performance of conventional UPS vehicles.

The U.S. Department of Energy, Unique Electric Solutions and the University of Texas collaborated with UPS on the project. The first medium-duty truck will hit the streets of Sacramento, California, by year's end.

This isn't the company's first foray into the hydrogen economy. UPS ordered 125 hybrid electric trucks from Ohio-based electric vehicle company Workhorse last spring. By the fall, it was laying plans for 200 more. And its so-called "Rolling Laboratory" is also looking into alternative and renewable sources for hydrogen.

3. The race for an alternative-fuel truck

Elon Musk pitched a new all-electric truck for Tesla last month. But competition from the hydrogen sector may prove fiercer than the cleantech mogul anticipated.

Days after Tesla's announcement, Japanese automaker Toyota unveiled a fuel cell truck feasibility study at the Port of Los Angeles.

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are entering the 12th year of an ongoing emissions-reduction project. They've already made significant progress. But the use of diesel vehicles on the port is inflating emissions numbers.

Enter the hydrogen fuel cell EV -- which produces zero tailpipe emissions and can be refueled quickly and easily. The heavy-duty vehicles are expected to perform side-by-side with their diesel-powered counterparts.

But Toyota isn't the only dog in this race: A Utah startup called Nikola Motor Co. already has a head start. Last year it linked up with legacy trucking company Ryder for an ambitious project that includes a network of renewable hydrogen stations.

4. Compact fueling stations pave the way

Fuel cell electric vehicles can refill faster than conventional EVs. But there's a catch: Hydrogen fueling stations are harder to install, piping hydrogen into them can be difficult, and they tend to take up more space than electric vehicle stations.

But SimpleFuel, a project of three stakeholder companies, is out to change this. Its compact system uses electricity to split water and create hydrogen. When linked with a renewable energy source like wind or solar, a system like this could pave the way for renewable hydrogen on a mass scale.

And the SimpleFuel team says its onsite hydrogen generation and fueling station is small enough to be installed at businesses, public buildings and large residential complexes. While it's not quite as easy as plugging a conventional EV into a home outlet, it's certainly a start. And it could propel the three little known companies -- Ivys Energy Solutions and McPhy Energy North America of Massachusetts and PDC Machines of Pennsylvania -- into the spotlight.

5. Hydrogen forklifts make waves

Electric vehicle fueling stations still far outnumber their hydrogen counterparts. This presents a huge roadblock for fuel cell EV adoption in the mass market. But logistics is a key area where hydrogen is poised to reign supreme.

And the lowly forklift offers a prime example. Think of it this way: If a company opts for electric forklifts to cut emissions, those vehicles must be left to charge for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour. Some warehouses operate 24 hours a day, so charging overnight isn't a viable solution. And forcing drivers to stop their work for a lengthy charge will slow down operations.

Fuel cell forklifts, on the other hand, can be refueled in mere minutes -- just like a gasoline-powered vehicle. Both Toshiba and Amazon are looking into fuel cell forklifts to cut emissions at their warehouses and fulfillment centers. Amazon even sunk $600 million into the project, indicating the e-commerce giant thinks the hydrogen economy may be for real, too.

6. The 'hydrogen fuel cell hotel' turns heads

In February, Radisson Blu teamed up with energy company E.ON to launch a new fuel cell system at its iconic hotel in Frankfurt, Germany.

“The use of fuel cell technology allows the Radisson Blu hotel to generate a large share of the energy needed to run the hotel free of emissions,” the companies said in a press announcement.

As 3p clean energy correspondent Tina Casey pointed out, the move "signals that hydrogen fuel cell technology is mature and capable of providing a significant amount of power for major structures."

Starting in late summer, the fuel cells will supply about 3 gigawatt-hours of electricity and 2 GWh of heat to the hotel, the companies said. That's enough to help the hotel eliminate 600 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

7. A nod from the military lends confidence

It turns out hydrogen vehicles are tailor-made for military use.

"In vehicles and aircraft, they combine range and power with stealth. They create no airborne emissions; they run quietly; and they operate at lower temperatures, giving away less of a thermal footprint than diesel or other combustible fuels," 3p's Tina Casey reported in January. "Similar factors make hydrogen fuel cells attractive for stationary power supply."

In partnership with General Motors, the Department of Defense is exploring the use of hydrogen-fueled SUVs and drones for tactical operations.

8. Water-splitting and solar power offer hope for renewable hydrogen

Again, the main source of hydrogen is still natural gas. While we have the technology to split hydrogen from water, the process remains energy-intensive and cost prohibitive in most cases.

A breakthrough that combines water-splitting with renewable energy can bring down price and make hydrogen a truly sustainable fuel. And innovators are getting closer.

The Energy Department ramped up its water-splitting initiatives last fall by linking six national laboratories in an initiative called HydroGEN. And in March, DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in partnership with the the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis and the California Institute of Technology, identified 12 new catalysts that can split hydrogen from water.

Their research aims to use these catalysts to bring down the price of water-splitting while incorporating solar energy.

Image credits: 1) UPS 2) Toyota 3) General Motors (all press use only) 

Business owners who are thinking about buying or leasing an electric car may soon have another option to consider: hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. FCEVs are just beginning to nudge their way into the mass market, and a three-company collaboration called SimpleFuel may help accelerate the trend.

What's holding hydrogen FCEVs back?

Hydrogen FCEVs run on electricity, just like the now familiar battery EV. The difference is that FCEVs generate electricity on-the-go from a chemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen.

The problem for FCEVs is two-fold. First, they need to compete on price with mainstream battery EVs for the zero-emission mass market. Battery EVs caught on quickly: Many are now price competitive with gasoline-powered cars, and most cost less than an FCEV.

Second, hydrogen fuel stations are still few and far between. When the fuel station network does build out, FCEVs are still at a disadvantage in terms of convenience: EV charging stations are compact and can fit just about anywhere, including a home or business. A grid hookup isn't even necessary if on-site wind or solar energy is available.

Hydrogen fuel, on the other hand, needs to be delivered and stored.

The first problem has a pretty straightforward solution. As FCEV technology improves and economies of scale kick in, prices will fall.

Bringing a hydrogen fuel station into a home or business is a more daunting mission, especially if the end goal is to reduce carbon emissions all along the supply chain.

Battery EVs can be charged on-site from small-scale wind or solar, if such a power source is available, or through a grid mix that includes renewables.

In contrast, the primary source for hydrogen is natural gas. Typically that involves a high-temperature steam process that does not lend itself to home or business use.

That's where SimpleFuel comes in.

A hydrogen machine in every garage

SimpleFuel says its hydrogen production and fueling unit is small enough to fit on commercial properties, community centers and public buildings, multi-unit housing, and other relatively large residential properties.

Instead of sourcing from natural gas, the SimpleFuel system uses electricity to "split" hydrogen from water. So, like battery EVs, FCEVs could derive their fuel from on-site or grid-supplied renewables.

Renewable hydrogen is coming into large-scale use as energy producers look for ways to store excess power generated by renewable sources including wind, solar and tidal energy.

The U.S. Energy Department and other stakeholders recognized the potential for small-scale energy storage based on hydrogen. Several years ago, the agency launched the $1 million H-Prize competition, challenging innovators to come up with a solution.

SimpleFuel won that contest in January 2016 with a compact water-splitting system powered by electricity. Massachusetts companies Ivys Energy Solutions and McPhy Energy North America, as well as PDC Machines of Pennsylvania, are collaborating on the SimpleFuel project.

The Energy Department offered an update last week:

"The 7-foot-long enclosure with its iconic curved silhouette houses all the equipment necessary to convert water into clean hydrogen fuel. It can be used in a variety settings: homes, community centers, municipalities or small businesses, and it’s grabbing the industry’s attention by storm."

The system is designed to provide up to six kilograms of hydrogen daily. A one-kilogram fill of hydrogen takes about15 minutes or less and gives an FCEV a range of about 60 to 70 miles.

A commercial-scale hydrogen filling station can provide far greater range in less time, but the 60- t0 70-mile mark is more than enough to satisfy the typical daily use of most consumer and fleet vehicles.

Why hydrogen?

The SimpleFuel system is modular and transportable, an important advantage for business owners.

The small scale also provides a significant cost advantage. Large-scale commercial systems typically run into the $2 million to $3 million range and involve a lengthy installation timeline.

The Energy Department sees the mobility market of the future relying at least partly on small-scale hydrogen generation and fueling stations:

"Modular fueling projects like these could be an integral part of the deployment of hydrogen infrastructure across the country to support more transportation energy options for U.S. consumers."

Darryl Pollica of Ivys Energy Solutions is satisfied that demonstrating the viability of SimpleFuel's small-scale solution will propel the system to market:

"Through our participation in the H-Prize competition, we have received great exposure and interest across the industry from codes and standards organizations to federal/local government agencies to politicians and more. That’s putting wind in our sails to commercialize."

Commercialization may happen even sooner than Pollica expects. The semi truck startup Nikola already has big plans for a network of hydrogen generation-and-filling stations in the U.S. powered by on-site solar arrays. And UPS recently announced an FCEV demonstration project that could also boost interest in on site hydrogen generation.

Demand for FCEVs is also accelerating in the logistics field. Toyota is testing an on-site generation-and-filling station for forklifts powered by wind energy, and Amazon's interest in fuel cell forklifts is catching attention.

What's up with the Department of Energy?

As a side note, it's interesting that the Energy Department broke the news about SimpleFuel at this particular time.

After all, the Donald Trump administration is not known to be a fan of clean technology, and the president has pledged to withdraw the U.S. from the historic Paris climate agreement.

In addition, there doesn't appear to be any milestone or other big "new" news to report on the SimpleFuel project.

Nevertheless, the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy put out a press release for SimpleFuel on May 8 as part of its ongoing "Success Stories" series.

It's just one in a torrent of positive stories about clean tech and renewables that the Energy Department has cranked out during the Trump administration, through the agency's blog posts, social media and press releases.

It almost seems as if Energy Secretary Rick Perry is thumbing his nose at the president's pro-coal rhetoric.

If you know what to make of it, drop a note in the comment section.

Image credit: U.S. Department of Energy.

Save

Save

Save