In The News

Clean energy co. abandons plans for Georgia factory after buying Texas plant

Freyr Battery acquired Trina Solar’s 5 GW solar module manufacturing facility in Wilmer, Texas. Photo courtesy of Freyr Battery

A clean energy company is abandoning a plan to build a giant electric battery factory in Atlanta's suburbs after it shifted to buy a solar panel plant in Texas.

Freyr Battery told officials on Thursday that it wouldn't build a $2.6 billion plant that was supposed to hire more than 700 people, after sending a Jan. 21 letter to the Coweta County Development Authority announcing its plans to end the project.

The factory would have built batteries to store electricity produced by renewable sources and release it later, company officials said. It would have been the second-largest battery factory worldwide when it was announced in 2023. But Freyr, a startup founded in 2018, never began construction on the 368-acre site.

Freyr, which moved its corporate headquarters from Norway to Newnan in part to maximize its eligibility for the U.S. tax benefits of President Joe Biden's climate law, said it was shifting its focus to a newly opened solar panel factory that it bought last year for $340 million from top Chinese solar panel maker Trina Solar. The facility is located in Wilmer, Texas (Dallas County).

“We are so grateful for the support and partnership we found in Coweta County and throughout Georgia," Freyr spokesperson Amy Jaick wrote in a statement, "However, as noted in our December release, we are focusing at the moment on the solar module manufacturing facility in Texas.”

The Newnan Times-Herald first reported the story, saying Freyr senior vice president of business development Jason Peace met Thursday with local officials. Peace told Coweta County Development Authority board members that the decision was driven by rising interest rates, falling battery prices, a change in company leadership and a shift in its goals, authority President Sarah Jacobs wrote in an email Friday.

The Georgia Department of Economic Development said the state conveyed a $7 million grant to buy a site for Freyr in Newnan, about 35 miles southwest of Atlanta. Department spokesperson Jessica Atwell said the state and company are “working together” to ensure the money is “repaid expeditiously.” Freyr may also owe money to Coweta County.

“Georgia’s incentives process protects the Georgia taxpayer, and when a company’s plans change, that process ensures discretionary incentives are repaid," Atwell said in a statement.

Jacobs said planning for the project made Coweta County a stronger candidate for future projects.

The company had said it planned to build battery factories in Norway and Finland but said in November that it will try to sell its European business. The company also said it was terminating its license for technology to make batteries, paying $3 million to the company it was licensed from.

Tom Einar Jensen, then the company's CEO, told investors in August that it had grown difficult to raise money to make batteries because of a surplus of Chinese batteries being produced at lower costs. The company said it was switching its strategy into businesses that would allow it to raise cash, including solar panel manufacturing. The company saw its cash on hand fall from $253 million at the end of 2023 to $182 million on Sept. 30.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has targeted recruitment of the electric vehicle industry.

Korean firm SK Innovation built a $2.6 billion battery plant in Commerce, northeast of Atlanta and hired 3,000 workers, but later laid off or furloughed some workers.

Hyundai Motor Group has started production at a $7.6 billion electric vehicle and battery plant near Savannah, with plans to hire 8,500 workers. Electric truck maker Rivian revived its plans to build a plant east of Atlanta after a $6.6 billion loan from the Biden administration.

Trending News

 

A View From HETI

“It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.” Photo via Getty Images

Power plants and industrial facilities that emit carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global warming, are hopeful that Congress will keep tax credits for capturing the gas and storing it deep underground.

The process, called carbon capture and sequestration, is seen by many as an important way to reduce pollution during a transition to renewable energy.

But it faces criticism from some conservatives, who say it is expensive and unnecessary, and from environmentalists, who say it has consistently failed to capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a way for producers of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal to continue their use.

Here's a closer look.

How does the process work?

Carbon dioxide is a gas produced by burning of fossil fuels. It traps heat close to the ground when released to the atmosphere, where it persists for hundreds of years and raises global temperatures.

Industries and power plants can install equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before it leaves the smokestack. The carbon then is compressed and shipped — usually through a pipeline — to a location where it’s injected deep underground for long-term storage.

Carbon also can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant vacuums. Once captured, it is dissolved by chemicals or trapped by solid material.

Lauren Read, a senior vice president at BKV Corp., which built a carbon capture facility in Texas, said the company injects carbon at high pressure, forcing it almost two miles below the surface and into geological formations that can hold it for thousands of years.

The carbon can be stored in deep saline or basalt formations and unmineable coal seams. But about three-fourths of captured carbon dioxide is pumped back into oil fields to build up pressure that helps extract harder-to-reach reserves — meaning it's not stored permanently, according to the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

How much carbon dioxide is captured?

The most commonly used technology allows facilities to capture and store around 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything above that rate is much more difficult and expensive, according to the IEA.

Some companies have forecast carbon capture rates of 90% or more, “in practice, that has never happened,” said Alexandra Shaykevich, research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project’s Oil & Gas Watch.

That's because it's difficult to capture carbon dioxide from every point where it's emitted, said Grant Hauber, a strategic adviser on energy and financial markets at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Environmentalists also cite potential problems keeping it in the ground. For example, last year, agribusiness company Archer-Daniels-Midland discovered a leak about a mile underground at its Illinois carbon capture and storage site, prompting the state legislature this year to ban carbon sequestration above or below the Mahomet Aquifer, an important source of drinking water for about a million people.

Carbon capture can be used to help reduce emissions from hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel, but many environmentalists contend it's less helpful when it extends the use of coal, oil and gas.

A 2021 study also found the carbon capture process emits significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s shorter-lived than carbon dioxide but traps over 80 times more heat. That happens through leaks when the gas is brought to the surface and transported to plants.

About 45 carbon-capture facilities operated on a commercial scale last year, capturing a combined 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — a tiny fraction of the 37.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector alone, according to the IEA.

It's an even smaller share of all greenhouse gas emissions, which amounted to 53 gigatonnes for 2023, according to the latest report from the European Commission’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says one of the world's largest carbon capture utilization and storage projects, ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek facility in Wyoming, captures only about half its carbon dioxide, and most of that is sold to oil and gas companies to pump back into oil fields.

Future of US tax credits is unclear

Even so, carbon capture is an important tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, particularly in heavy industries, said Sangeet Nepal, a technology specialist at the Carbon Capture Coalition.

“It’s not a substitution for renewables ... it’s just a complementary technology,” Nepal said. “It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.”

Experts say many projects, including proposed ammonia and hydrogen plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast, likely won't be built without the tax credits, which Carbon Capture Coalition Executive Director Jessie Stolark says already have driven significant investment and are crucial U.S. global competitiveness.

Trending News