Reactions: Hydrogen as a green fuel and the impact of the Loper Bright decision

Letters to the editor

Can hydrogen ever truly be a green fuel?

Shortly after I received a chemical engineering degree in 1970, I joined the American Chemical Society and saw a C&EN cover story asking whether hydrogen is the fuel of the future. I would submit it was then, is now, and will remain the fuel of the future for some time.

Sure, hydrogen burns with the abundant oxygen in the atmosphere to make nonpolluting water. Hydrogen is readily available in the universe and in our sun, but bringing it to Earth is not going to happen. So we must get hydrogen from sources on Earth. Hydrogen bonds exothermically with carbon and other elements, and there are lots of these molecules on Earth. Unfortunately, free hydrogen is not readily available to us. Therefore, considerable amounts of energy, capital, and costs are required to liberate hydrogen for fuel use.

Advocates say, “Hydrogen can be made green.” I will submit it can be green only if it comes from a renewable energy source like nuclear, solar, wind, hydrothermal, or geothermal energy. But only if that energy cannot be used for another need that will then require more fossil fuels. Although hydrogen is alleged to come from green sources, this is likely not true. I believe that hydrogen is not green if it creates the need for other energy uses to consume fossil fuels instead of the renewable source used to make this “green” hydrogen.

About 40 years ago, I made and sold hydrogen in one of my business units and learned that hydrogen is hazardous stuff. Hydrogen is volatile, flammable, odorless, tasteless, energetic, and explosive. It burns with almost no flame and embrittles metals. It must be treated with the utmost respect, as we saw from the Hindenburg disaster. Unless hydrogen can be made economically from hydrocarbons or other molecules in situ as it is consumed from a true green energy source, hydrogen will likely remain the fuel of the future.

G. A. Ben Binninger
Valencia, California

Loper Bright decision

The July 8/15, 2024, article (page 3) on the US Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises decision was excellent. Just to pile on, we should also note that the Environmental Protection Agency said that carbon dioxide emissions are a pollutant that will cause major damage to the health and safety of all of us. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can’t cap power plants’ carbon emissions. In addition, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has said that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”

My own personal experience from decades in Food and Drug Administration–regulated industries impels me to emphasize the magnitude of Loper Bright’s impact.

Here’s what happens when Congress passes a law requiring FDA action:

▸ The FDA’s lawyers examine the law passed by Congress to determine the extent of powers delegated to the FDA by Congress.

▸ The FDA’s technical experts write a draft regulation.

▸ The FDA publishes the draft, requesting comments from the public.

▸ The FDA produces the final regulation incorporating (or not) the public comments.

The key point here is that Congress delegated limited authority to the FDA. It makes total sense, right? Congress knows nothing about food and drugs. Now the Supreme Court has yanked that authority from the FDA and, more importantly, from Congress.

What impact will this have on the mutual recognition agreements between the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other equivalent agencies around the world? The EMA currently does not inspect US drug producers because they can rely on FDA inspections. Will this eventually lead to the resumption of European Union inspections in the US simply because the agencies can no longer rely on the good manufacturing practice reports issued by the FDA? And would a company from outside the US (but with deep pockets) be able to overturn the import bans that are frequently deployed to protect US consumers from substandard products?

I’m no lawyer, but this seems like a big constitutional change. And I see only higher costs for US taxpayers and worse outcomes for US patients.

Norm Howe
Ann Arbor, Michigan