GM outlines plan for addressing Bolt battery combustion; production of battery modules resumes
SCA and St1 enter joint venture to produce and develop renewable diesel and biojet fuels

Plug Power to build largest green hydrogen production facility on US west coast; 30 tonnes of LH2 per day

Plug Power is expanding its green hydrogen ecosystem to the US west coast with the construction of a new production facility in Fresno County, California. Green hydrogen is produced through the electrolysis of water with electricity generated from zero-carbon sources; only oxygen is emitted during the process.

As the largest green hydrogen production facility on the west coast, the plant will produce 30 metric tons of liquid green hydrogen daily, serving customers from San Diego to Vancouver. The facility will use a new 300 megawatt zero-carbon solar farm to power 120 megawatts of Plug Power’s state-of-the-art PEM electrolyzers.

The California plant joins the company’s growing national network of plants in New York, Tennessee, and Georgia that will supply 500 tons per day of liquid green hydrogen by 2025, replacing 4.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and 1,000 tons per day globally by 2028.

When fully built, the network of plants in the US will offer transportation fuel to customers that is price-competitive with diesel, the company said. Plug Power’s investment in green hydrogen production will contribute to decarbonizing light-duty vehicles, freight-transportation, and logistics operations, and supports California’s leading role in developing hydrogen as a zero-emission fuel.

The project includes construction of a new tertiary wastewater treatment plant in the city of Mendota that will provide recycled water for the people of Mendota and supply the full needs of the plant.

Pending environmental and construction permitting approvals, the plant will break ground in early 2023, with complete commissioning in early 2024.



Hyzon have said that to do long distance hydrogen trucking they can get 1,000 mile range using liquid hydrogen and only need 3 or 4 stops to get across the US.

We are closer to zero carbon and zero pollution heavy trucking than people imagine.

No breakthrough technology needed.


Meanwhile over here in Utah (and in Nevada), we are burning coal to supply electric power to California. The Intermountain Power Project which is a large coal-fired power plant in Delta, Utah has an installed capacity of 1,900 MW and is operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This plant alone burns about 20,000 tons of coal per day and produces somewhere around 15 million tons of CO2 annually. Clean hydrogen is only clean when they are not burning coal or natural gas to make up for the "clean" power taken off the grid to run their electrolyzers.


only oxygen is emitted
Sell the oxygen



They are not taking any electricity off the grid,
Did you miss the bit about the 300MW solar farm to power it?


I thought I might be overstating my case in saying that Plug Power are not taking any electricity from the grid, although pf course their solar arrays will provide much of it.

I thought present costs of electrolysers too high to be run just when solar is available, so am wondering if there is offsets for part of it, as the standards for green hydrogen are quite strict, I believe.

They do claim that their site in Georgia is producing 100% green hydrogen.

I was not really able to sort out definitively what is going on, but did come across this informative map of their existing and planned sites to cover the US, released at the time of their conference call:


Matching the price of fuel in California isn't that difficult since oil is $75 a barrel and diesel is $4.50 a gallon at the pump.
Watching all this makes me appreciate the fact I've been charging my EV for 10 years at home and haven't had to buy transportation gasoline from the oil companies for ten years. Those who would support transportation hydrogen might find themselves on the same old treadmill of fuel dependence from wholesalers.
I believe surplus green hydrogen from electrolysis might make a good fuel for electric trains and sea ships but not for cars.



This is for long distance trucks.


First of all Fresno county is not on the coast so it’s not the West Coast second of all what are you gonna get to water this is a severe drought for the past 20 years this is a totally ridiculous idea I have worked with hydrogen The typical moron cannot pump hydrogen is just a disaster waiting to happen hydrogen is not an every day transportation fuel

Roger Pham

@Lad @sd,
Having a nation-wide network of H2-filling stations for trucks would enable a nation-wide fleet of Plug-in FCV that are Zero-Emission Vehicles that would require only 1/5 the battery capacity of a long-range BEV, thus freeing up enough battery capacity to make 5 times more plug-in EV's. The growth of BEV's right now is limited by battery capacity.
A Plug-in FCV can use grid electricity for 80% of total mileage and only needing H2 for long trips.

With a big-enough fleet of Plug-in FCV that are plugged-in to charge with solar energy during the day and wind at night, they can also be programmed to release electricity to back-up the grid when necessary using the vast H2 storage capacity, thus making a 100%-RE grid possible without requiring fossil-fuel power plants like the coal plants that you are referring to.

With a 100%-RE-grid, we can use the vast energy excess during Springs and Falls to make H2 to help back-up seasons of high electricity demand like Winters and Summers. Without the massive E-storage capacity of H2 to be stored in depleted oil and gas wells, we will not be able to arrive at a 100%-RE grid and a 100%-RE economy.


@ gizx; RP:
The complete "well to wheels" H2-cycle is dastardly inefficient and will never approach - let alone reach the scales of economy. An FC is horribly expensive and owes its existence to being heavily subsidized. The prices for both - H2 and FCs - are purely arbitrary and do not even closely reflect their true cost/ value. The price difference between a H2-filling station and a charging station - with many charging points - is absolutely ridiculous. Once the fossil fuel industry has caught enough "fish" in their nets, they'll start calling true prices for their services to the utter dismay of all those that they have managed to fool.



I did not miss that they were building a 300 MW solar farm. They are planning to use this to power a 120 MW electolyzer. I assume that the 300 MW is the so called "Plate Power" which means that in a good location, averaged over a year, you will have 50 MW. The 300 MW max power is more than the 120 MW electrolyzer power so unless they have local storage, they are going to feed the excess power to the grid and pull power off the grid when there is less than 120 MW available. As 120 MW is greater than the average solar power of about 50 MW, I think that it is safe to say, unless there are only going to operate 8 or 10 hours a day, they are going to be pulling net power off the grid including the power produced by coal in Utah and Nevada.

@Roger Pham

We do not have anything close to a 100% RE grid. At the moment, it is about 20% renewable, 20% nuclear, and 60% fossil fuel and about half of the renewable is about hydro which is not going to grow and is the only dispatchable RE. So, unless we build a lot of storage, we are not going to get to 100% RE or even 50% RE and going from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity is inefficient and expensive.



At this stage of the game in the US with a low penetration of renewables most places offset does not seem unreasonable to me, and renewables obligations likely mean that coal will be shut down when there is an excess.

Its a different matter as the percentage of renewables in the grid increases, but the cost of storage is certainly rapidly falling just as the cost of the renewables themselves has done over the last decade.

I don't think what PlugPower is doing should be dismissed or minimised.



Coal is rapidly fading in the US based primarily on economics. With the huge success of fracking (like it or not), it has become cheaper to use natural gas which is also better for the environment than coal. They are actually going to replace coal with natural gas at the 1900 MW power plant in Delta, Utah. Unless you have a lot of storage, you can not reasonably approach 100% RE except where there is a lot of hydro as in Iceland, Norway, northern Quebec, etc. If I was making the decision, I would go with about 60% nuclear, 10% hydro, and the rest wind and solar with some storage. Use the nuclear to make hydrogen when you have excess power.


Store fossil power plant emissions to reduce CO2



Yeah, I would like loads of nuclear too, but they ain't building it, or rather just one in the UK, although they have said they hope to have Gen 4.

But 10 years ago renewables themselves were very uneconomic, almost everywhere.
I have linked previously that there are substantial grounds for thinking that over the next ten years the cost of storing it in volume will drop in a similar manner.

At the moment electrolysers are not cheap enough to run them for the 2000 hours pa that is all that would be needed for a $300KW electrolysis unit, but they are in China and costs are dropping rapidly with volume elsewhere.


Fast reactors use nuclear waste for fuel


More details of what resources Plug Power is using to produce green hydrogen at its various sites:

Windpower in Virginia, 345MW:

Hydropower in Pennsylvania:

Hydropower in New York, to power 120MW of electrolysers:

The comments to this entry are closed.