Led by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center’s Office of Energy Assurance, the eight-month initiative will examine whether subsurface hydrogen deposits near the two installations could provide a cost-competitive alternative—or supplement—to natural gas and diesel generation. The Air Force has awarded a contract to Renaissance Philanthropy to conduct the feasibility study.
Geologic hydrogen forms through chemical reactions between water and iron-rich rocks underground. Unlike conventional hydrogen production—which relies on electrolysis or reforming—geoH₂ proponents argue that extracting hydrogen directly from wells could reduce both production costs and lifecycle emissions.
The study will analyze:
Researchers will draw on data from selected commercial wells within roughly 200 miles of each base.
Kirk Phillips, director of the Office of Energy Assurance, said the initiative reflects a broader resilience strategy. Diversifying fuel supply, he noted, strengthens mission assurance by reducing dependence on a single energy source.
Military installations have increasingly prioritized on-site generation and fuel diversification to reduce exposure to grid disruptions and fuel delivery risks. If locally available and cost-competitive, geologic hydrogen could potentially support baseload power, fuel cells, or backup systems.
Some advocates suggest production costs could reach $0.50–$1.50 per kilogram, though those estimates remain unproven at scale. For comparison, many clean hydrogen projects under development today remain above that range, depending on power and infrastructure inputs.
Globally, more than $1 billion has flowed into over 100 geologic hydrogen startups seeking to validate commercial viability. Demonstrations in regions such as Mali have shown small-scale feasibility, but industrial-scale production remains untested.
Renaissance Philanthropy has issued a Request for Information (RFI) to gather feedback from industry and regulatory experts. The RFI seeks input on technoeconomic modeling assumptions, access to relevant wells and infrastructure, permitting timelines, and cost drivers.
Regulatory pathways for geologic hydrogen are still evolving, often overlapping with oil and gas, geothermal, or subsurface gas frameworks. That uncertainty could shape deployment timelines.
For now, the Air Force effort is focused on grounding theoretical projections in field data. Whether geologic hydrogen becomes a niche resource or a broader energy option for federal installations will depend on production reliability, cost performance, and regulatory clarity.
