Geologic Hydrogen: Could the Smallest Molecule Power the Whole World?, with Ishan Sharma

Notable Quotes

• Naturally occurring hydrogen can save money and energy: “We’ve engineered these massive, costly factories to manufacture a molecule from scratch. And looking ahead, we want even more of it … which means that this problem is going to get even bigger. The thing that gets me really excited about geologic hydrogen is that it turns out the ground might already be doing the process for us, in ways that might be way more efficient than the way we manufacture hydrogen today.” (4:50)
• Geologic hydrogen could power the world: “The US Geological Survey in 2025 put out the first global estimate of how much hydrogen we think is in the ground: they estimated 5.6 trillion metric tons. The world uses about 100 million metric tons. So, 5.6 trillion metric tons is a remarkable amount. Even just tapping 2 percent would be enough to power civilization for centuries.” (6:55)
• Information requires cooperation: “The more we can work with industry partners to share data from their first pilot [projects], and the more test beds and demonstration projects we can build that are open source, the more capital will ultimately flow to the field, and the faster we’ll figure it out—the faster we’ll understand how hydrogen coming from the ground really works.” (19:50)

Top of the Stack

• Chimaera Fund
• “Designing a Life That Matters” episode of the Hidden Brain podcast
• Odd Lots podcast from Bloomberg
• Ministry for the Future

The Full Transcript

Daniel Raimi: Hello, and welcome to Resources Radio, a weekly podcast from Resources for the Future (RFF). I’m your host, Daniel Raimi.

Today, we talk with Ishan Sharma, founder and director of the Chimaera Fund at Renaissance Philanthropy. As you’ll hear, Ishan is on a mission to build a new industry: geologic hydrogen.

The world only recently learned that we can produce large amounts of hydrogen from under the ground, and the scale of the resource is immense, with the technical potential to satisfy all of Earth’s energy needs for centuries. But can we actually get this resource out of the ground economically? And what parts of the economy would actually use all of that hydrogen? We’ll talk about this and much more in today’s episode. Stay with us.

Ishan Sharma from Renaissance Philanthropy, welcome to Resources Radio.

Ishan Sharma: Thanks for having me on, Daniel. It’s great to be here.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, I’m really looking forward to this conversation. It’s going to be about a topic that I’ve only recently started to explore, but you’ve been deep in for quite some time. But before we start talking about geologic hydrogen, first, can you give us a sense of how you got interested in working on energy or environmental issues? Did you have early-in-life inspiration that brought you to this field, or something happened later on?

Ishan Sharma: I wouldn’t say early life inspiration. Maybe I’ll start with the last few years, which I spent working on industrial policy at the White House alongside a handful of brilliant scientists and technologists who were focused on commercializing what we would call “nationally important technologies” in industries like semiconductors, bio[technology] and energy. And for whatever reason, part of those technologies wouldn’t scale based on the private market. So, there was a need to figure out exactly how and why they weren’t scaling, and what were the solutions.

As part of that job, I had the privilege of serving as the White House lead for geothermal, which at the time was not on many people’s radar and was definitely not a primary focus. Most folks were excited about nuclear, or solar and batteries. But from my perspective, if you looked at the early estimates for AI, it was clear we were going to need every solution out there, and there wasn’t a path without geothermal.

So, when I left about a year ago, I was pretty certain geothermal was going to scale. But by being the geothermal guy, this nascent industry known as geologic hydrogen crossed my desk. And the more I learned, the more I was shocked that, like I felt with geothermal, no one was thinking about geologic hydrogen seriously enough.

So, Daniel, to be honest, I came to energy and environment more from the mindset of focusing on problems that others weren’t really tackling, what we’d call “neglected issues.” And I started the Chimaera Fund at Renaissance Philanthropy as a philanthropic initiative to rapidly and responsibly scale geologic hydrogen, avoiding some of the same issues that had wrangled geothermal for decades while learning from what worked in other subsurface industries like shale.

Daniel Raimi: Very cool. All right. Well, we’re going to talk about all that stuff today.

Let’s start with some really basic background. How does the world make and use hydrogen today, and how might we be able to use it as a primary energy source in the future?

Ishan Sharma: Yeah, it’s a great question. So, the funny thing about hydrogen is that, today, it’s not really a fuel. It’s an industrial ingredient. We make about 100 million metric tons a year. Most of it goes into fertilizer and refining oil to make plastics and other things. And we make almost all of it in one of the hardest ways you can imagine: the main method is called “steam methane reforming,” and you take natural gas, you blast it with super hot steam and basically rip the hydrogen atoms off the methane by brute force. Now, this thing works, and that’s what we’ve been doing to meet the world’s hydrogen demand, but it’s extremely energy intensive and, of course, dumps a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, the clean alternative is something called electrolysis, which uses electricity to basically pry water apart into hydrogen and oxygen. So, splitting that H2 from O. Now, this also works, but water’s a very stable molecule, so you’re spending a ton of energy to break it, which makes it expensive and you need more energy to make the one kilogram of hydrogen than you’ll get out of that one kilogram of hydrogen. So, it’s a net loss of energy.

I’ll spare you the full color wheel from green to blue to pink to gray hydrogen. I think a lot of these have different nuances based on the sources of electricity, but the main point is that if we take a step back and think about the future, we’ve engineered these massive, costly factories to manufacture a molecule from scratch. And looking ahead, we want even more of it, right? We want it for steel, for shipping, for heavy industry, which means that this hard problem is going to get even bigger.

So instead, the thing that gets me really excited about GeoH2, or geologic hydrogen, is that it turns out the ground might already be doing the process for us—in a few different ways we collectively refer to as GeoH2—that might be way more efficient than the way we’ve been manufacturing hydrogen today.

Daniel Raimi: Right. You could just get it out of the ground instead of going through all of these energy intensive processes to produce the hydrogen.

So, can you tell us about the discovery of geologic hydrogen? How long have we known that these molecules are in the ground and potentially extractable?

Ishan Sharma: It’s a great question. So, the exact dates of the first discoveries are up for debate, but the story people really love is Mali. Back in 1987, a water well was being drilled in a small town and instead of water, they hit gas. The funny part is a driller leaned in with a cigarette, and the whole thing caught fire. Now, they capped it and walked away for several years, but when a company finally went back in and tested it, they found 98 percent pure hydrogen was just coming out of the ground. So, they hooked up a generator, and that one well has been quietly powering the village since 2011.

Now, that was a really important discovery, because for decades the conventional textbook on geoscience said hydrogen could never accumulate in the ground. The molecule’s too small, and it would just leak away. Mali was very much the proof that, in fact, it is able to accumulate. And since then, we’ve seen about a billion dollars go into the industry across 150 or so companies exploring where and how this thing really generates.

The exciting part is that the US Geological Survey in 2025 put out the first real global estimate of how much hydrogen we think is in the ground: they estimated 5.6 trillion metric tons of H2. If you remember from the last 30 seconds or a minute, the world uses about 100 million metric tons. So, 5.6 trillion metric tons is a remarkable amount. Even just tapping 2 percent would be enough to power civilization for centuries.

Now, the kicker here is that we’ve known how to produce hydrogen. The question is just, can we produce it at an effective cost? And the leading techno-economic estimates place this geologic hydrogen at between 50 cents and $2 per kilogram already, without emissions or reliance on natural gas supply chains. That alternative, electrolysis, today is still between $5–$12 per kilogram. So, you can imagine this discovery is quite exciting for what it could mean for the future. It’s crazy, from my perspective, that after all this time, we’re just learning this now. After all these wells that we’ve drilled.

So, to take an extra second to explain some of the explanations for why there’s hydrogen in the ground, the simplest is that it is the lightest and most abundant molecule in the universe—and that may be true for the earth’s mantle. So, in several cases, it’s true that that hydrogen molecule escapes from deep in the earth’s crust into accessible regions that we can drill for. “Chimneys,” we call it in the industry. And this process is known as degassing. There’s other reasons why hydrogen might be in the ground, like the radioactive decay of ancient rocks and such.

Now, one of the most exciting things we’re learning is how to engineer the hydrogen in the ground. It’s a simple chemical reaction we understand quite well: the rusting of iron. When iron-rich rocks interact with water, the iron effectively strips the H2 from the O. So, you don’t need a ton of electricity to brute force that separation, and you also don’t need these magic moments of free gas accumulations, where hydrogen is being stored. And so, this concept is something that we’re excited about the Chimaera Fund, because it reduces the exploration risk. It becomes a geochemistry question rather than an exploration question.

So, there’s all these things going on. Sandia National Laboratories at a recent conference I think you and I both were at, Daniel, noted that there sare 34 different ways to make hydrogen naturally. The most exciting aspect of all of this is that it takes less electricity in than the electricity we would get out. So, from our vantage point, geologic hydrogen becomes the first new primary energy source discovered in over 80 years since nuclear. And turns out it might be a much more efficient process than manufacturing it in the first place.

Daniel Raimi: Right, that makes sense. You mentioned that tapping even a small percentage of the hydrogen that we think is in the ground could power civilization for centuries, which is mind-boggling. What are some of the ways that we might use hydrogen in the economy?

Ishan Sharma: So, the exciting part is that iron is one of the most common elements in the Earth. If we know that iron plus water equals hydrogen, then there’s enough iron-rich rocks that could basically be converted into hydrogen generators to power civilization for centuries. The actual process itself is that the rocks would be rusting and breathing out hydrogen, and I think that’s pretty incredible.

The reason why I start there is because all over the planet you’ve got these potential natural hydrogen generators powered by two of the most abundant things we have on our planet: iron and water. So, when we think about scale or when we think about use cases, what’s most striking about GeoH2 isn’t the “5.6 trillion metric tons” number—it’s actually where this thing can show up, because it’s everywhere: from a single farm to heavy industry. So, that village in Mali, right? A few wells in a community that never had reliable power suddenly has clean baseload electricity from a stumble of a discovery.

There’s whole countries out there that never won the oil and gas lottery, and that hydrogen in the ground could mean energy security forever. We’re thinking in places like Japan, one of the world’s most hydrogen-rich economies and the most energy import–dependent of any advanced economy, they should be exploring geologic hydrogen. That’s a huge opportunity that hasn’t really been broached.

But if we take a step back away from power, there’s food. Most people don’t realize that hydrogen is what we turn into ammonia, which is necessary for fertilizer. And smallholder farmers in places like Kenya and Ethiopia really rely on imported fertilizer that’s extremely expensive and erratic, so they use too little of it, and their yields suffer. Local hydrogen completely changes that access-to-food problem. It means that you have a more reliable source that reduces the price, which means you could use more fertilizer and you can grow more food closer to home.

One of the other areas that we’ve been exploring is national security, specifically in the context of no-fail missions at Air Force bases. We’ve seen a tremendous amount of prospective potential in places like North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Alaska, and these are places that are still reliant on diesel generators. The Air Force and other critical military installations have a mandate from Congress to become energy resilient by 2030. That’s a really ambitious mandate, and turns out this could be, as we’re seeing interest from the Air Force, a part of the solution.

And then, of course, Daniel, there’s stuff that everyone in our world thinks about, which is industrials. So, steel, aviation, refining, chemicals, even mining. The thing that keeps me up at night is that these industries are making massive capital decisions on a whole new generation of heavy industry, and they’re making those decisions in the next 5 to 7 years that are going to lock in emissions for the next 30 to 40. For a lot of these sectors, hydrogen is the only way to decarbonize them, and we haven’t been able to prove a cost-effective way of making clean hydrogen. So, I see the geologic hydrogen opportunity as a moonshot, that if we can demonstrate and scale this thing—which we think is possible by 2030 or the early 2030s—we could change the trajectory. Instead of locking in emissions or even creating stranded assets for heavy industry, we’ll actually have a real solution that can draw down emissions.

Daniel Raimi: Right. Super intriguing. You mentioned a little while ago that there are two—depending on how you count it, either 2 or 34 or something like that—ways of producing hydrogen underground. Tell us about the buckets that exist of how people might actually be able to get this stuff out of the ground in the future.

Ishan Sharma: Yeah. So, let’s start with two main buckets, not to confuse folks. I think what you’re hitting on is the distinction between natural, or accumulations of, hydrogen—you think of those pockets of gas (it’s a little bit more complicated than pockets, which I’ll get into)—and then the engineered approach., We know that there’s iron in rocks. Finding the right type of iron is a big question. And then finding the right reaction profile where you inject water and that chemistry, that reaction can actually produce significant quantities of hydrogen. So, that’s the broad bucket we refer to as “engineered.” And there’s different approaches—you don’t necessarily need to inject water, you can try heat or other aspects to stimulate that chemical reaction—but it’s mostly focused on the chemistry, whereas natural or accumulations are mostly focused on exploration.

Now, on the first part, on natural, I think what we’re seeing is that the story is not as simple as natural gas. It’s not as if there’s these massive pockets, or even shale that you can get a bunch of gas out of. I think what folks are realizing is that there’s actually multiple different “chimneys” of hydrogen coming both from the deep earth, but also at different cross sections. You can imagine a complex web of hydrogen pathways, and so finding the system is what a lot of folks are focusing on: where is that system of interconnecting chimneys? That’s the big question, right? Because ultimately, what the field needs to be able to demonstrate is that there’s significant production possibility for geologic hydrogen. On the engineered approach, you have less of an exploration risk and more of a geochemistry risk. We’re seeing the first pilots in Quebec, and I think the New York Times recently did a whole profile on Vema Hydrogen and others.

So, part of the way we see it is that the economics of accumulations, or natural, are pretty hard to beat. If you just drill a vertical well into a pocket of hydrogen and you’re producing it like in Mali, that cost is going to be really cheap. Do you benefit from having an exploration approach that is just consistently hunting for those accumulations? Is it worth it, from an industry’s perspective, to try to figure out the hard geoscience or geochemistry for creating a repeatable process? I think a lot about this from my geothermal days with the enhanced geothermal systems: “Okay, we don’t need to just find naturally permeable rock or naturally, already occurring steam with geysers. We can find rock that’s hot and engineer it by creating those fractures, creating that permeability.” So, I wonder, in this case, if that engineered approach might be a more sustainable future for the industry.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, that makes sense. So, tell us a little bit about the Chimaera Fund and the work that you’re doing to try and grow this industry around the world. I talked to you frequently in the last couple of months, and I feel like every time I talk to you, you’re either going to or coming from some place far afield from the United States. So, tell us about what you’re up to.

Ishan Sharma: Thanks, Daniel. That’s very kind.

So, before talking about Chimaera, if we take a step back and look at what worked with shale and geothermal, there’s a common story, which is that as soon as those industries began sharing data from the field, the industry took off. In 1821, in Fredonia, New York, the first gas well was put into the ground. And between 1821 and 1990 was when George Mitchell really cracked the slickwater frack and we had the shale boom start. That’s a long time, right? 1821 to 1990, that’s 170 years.

The learning over that century plus was not linear at all. In fact, we could point to a very specific inflection point that happened in the 1970s called the Eastern Gas Shales Project, which was effectively a government-backed test bed that enabled industry to drill, and share data from drilling, across several different shale plays. So, if you look at the timeline, it’s pretty remarkable. It’s 1820, ’21, when the first well was drilled. 1976, we had the Eastern Gas Shales Project. And before the ’70s, the shale industry looked a lot like geologic hydrogen does today—sort of localized, niche, no one really thinking this thing could scale. After the ’70s, you effectively had an S-curve scaling timeline.

I think geothermal’s the same story. The first wells went into the ground in 1920, and it wasn’t really until the FORGE [Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy] test bed in 2014—and we can talk about Fenton Hill in the ’70s as well, but it really wasn’t until the FORGE test bed in 2014, which was a government-backed test bed in southwestern Utah—started putting its first wells into the ground that we are now about to see the first next-generation geothermal project deliver power, five or six or seven years later.

From our perspective, the animating thesis behind the Chimaera Fund is: how do we scale the industry through open sourcing its progress early on? Because I think the more we can work with industry partners to share data from their first pilots—the early-scale pilots—the more test beds and demonstration projects we can build that are open source, the more capital will ultimately flow to the field and the faster we’ll figure it out. The faster we’ll actually understand how hydrogen coming from the ground really works.

I can get into more about the details and the partnerships of the Chimaera Fund, but that history is why we do what we do and why we think there isn’t a path to commercializing GeoH2 by the 2030s without this open-sourced approach.

Daniel Raimi: That’s really interesting. So, in addition to the dedicated geologic hydrogen pilots and projects that you’re interested in, I know you’re also interested in old data, like old core samples that oil and gas companies drilled out 30, 40, 50 years ago that just haven’t been combed over. In general, oil and gas companies were never looking for hydrogen when they were checking out these core samples. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Ishan Sharma: That’s such a good question. So, in the geosciences, it’s remarkable how much data has not been used. Even new data. We’re working with an industry first-mover, known as HyTerra, to identify data sets that they’ve gathered from their operational pilots, where we can connect researchers to work with those data sets and publish that openly. It’s a sort of lightweight way, or scrappy way, of creating that “learning by doing” from the field. And even in our engagement with HyTerra, there’s tons of data that they’re sitting on, that as an operator you don’t have time to look through because you’re focused on actually putting together a whole project. So, if we can apply that thesis even to a lean start-up like HyTerra, over centuries of companies drilling into the ground, the amount of data that they’ve gathered and the data that they haven’t analyzed is immense. One can only imagine.

From our perspective, the types of core samples you need … We really lack high-quality core samples in an open, public domain. That’s one of the number one things a lot of the engineers in hydrogen start-ups tell me is, “How do we actually get access? Can Chimaera Fund sponsor shallow core drilling campaigns in a few different target regions? Because that’ll allow us to test, at least in the lab, how much hydrogen can be generated from this ‘water plus iron equals hydrogen’ in that location.” If you can get that early data, then all of a sudden you can raise capital to go explore. But we’re missing that first part in the linchpin.

The way we see it is that this is a real opportunity to work across the subsurface sectors—not just oil and gas, but geothermal, mining, even helium. We’ve been working with a helium company out in Montana that ended up hitting a pretty exciting and attractive ultramafic geologic hydrogen resource. And they’re like, “What do we do with this? We’re a helium company.” So, the more we learn about the ground, the more exciting it is to connect the dots. Where we see a huge opportunity is, how do you create the incentive for those companies to want to share that data? Right now it’s just a depreciating asset for those mining companies, those oil and gas companies that are just sitting on it. They’re not really using it. Can we figure out a way to really incentivize and push them to donate that data and to share that data? Because the whole field will benefit from something like that.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah. Super interesting. One technical thing I have to ask about: what is an ultramafic rock?

Ishan Sharma: I think any geoscientist listening to this may keel over at hearing my oversimplified response to this. The way I see these rock types, there’s a spectrum between felsic rocks on the left, which are more the white-looking-ish rocks that you can find, generally speaking, all the way to ultramafic on the other end, which are these dark, green, highly iron-dense rocks. And that’s basically what folks are looking for today, is where are the ultramafic rocks? Can they generate hydrogen?

Now, what we’re learning already from early lab results is that ultramafic may not be the only type of rock. There might be other types, either within ultramafics as a category that we’re underexploring, or in the one-stage-over mafic rocks, like mafic basalts and others, that have slightly less iron-rich content but are far more abundant. Therefore, you can imagine the total resource estimate becomes much higher when exploring those types. As a field, we haven’t really begun exploring the full spectrum of what’s possible to generate H2.

Daniel Raimi: Great. Super interesting. Ishan, one more question. We’re running short on time, so one more question—before we go to our Top of the Stack segment—which is about the challenges to scaling this industry. I imagine listeners are thinking about numerous challenges that might be facing the industry. You’ve talked a lot about data, and data availability, and sharing. What are some of the other big hurdles?

Ishan Sharma: I would say the first and biggest challenge is how we’re funding progress in the field. So, right now money’s going in the wrong shape, I would say.

We think about what it took to scale oil and gas, and shale, especially. It’s about hundreds of billions of dollars, decades of drilling and a base of shared, often federally funded research underneath it all. That’s really what kept companies drilling and pooling knowhow through decades. Geologic hydrogen looks almost the opposite. You’ve got a handful of companies each raising $10 million or $20 million each, with maybe one or two shots on goal to prove their entire concept. And then, of course, you’ve got one company that’s raised more money than maybe the rest of the industry combined, going at it alone, refusing to work with anyone else. That effectively puts the whole bet of this entire new energy resource on one company.

And honestly, Daniel, I think we’ve seen this movie before. Climate tech [venture capital] does what it always does and piles into a single favorite. If that bet fails, it doesn’t just take down a company, it poisons the whole field, because people say, “Oh, this thing doesn’t work.” So, from our vantage point, we really think data is fundamental, and sharing that early is what’s going to keep the field alive, because you don’t crack a new resource with one or two secret wells. This is exactly why we have to pool the data, because ultimately more capital will flow.

The second challenge is actually even more fundamental than this, which is how little we actually know about the ground beneath us. For all the millions of wells we’ve drilled, the subsurface is still sort of a black box. People, in casual conversations, they say we know more about the surface of Mars than what’s underneath our feet. I don’t even think that is an exaggeration.

As an example, scientists have just begun to grasp that there’s tons of life in the ground—15 billion to 23 billion tons of carbon. It’s hundreds of times the carbon in all of humanity living in a space that’s, like, twice the volume of all the oceans. It’s a whole world that’s living beneath us that affects commercial outcomes, whether it’s geologic hydrogen, critical minerals, helium, all these other things. And we only just started to appreciate that life existed this century.

So, from first principles, there’s so much we haven’t grasped, which is why in oil and gas, the most studied resource on earth, with centuries of data and the best seismic imaging, we still drill wells that completely miss the resource. From our vantage point, with oil and gas, you don’t need every well to hit. You just need one, and the whole economics work out. That sort of structural problem of the earth being a really hard thing to solve, applied to geologic hydrogen, means that folks want it to work on the first try, but there’s a perception risk in addition to how it’s being funded. We’re just starting to realize how much is down there. I think now would be the worst time to think about, “Oh, maybe we should pull back, because one company isn’t the right approach.”

And then third, of course, the stuff that you and I have spent a lot of time thinking about, which is that we haven’t even defined geologic hydrogen in legal code. Before the USGS, US Geological Survey, put out its first resource map, there had never really been a mention in a federal budget request or law. There was an ARPA-E, Advanced Research Project Agency program at the Department of Energy, that put out funding, and that was the only real funding, about $20 million, that has gone into the field from the US government.

There’s basic questions like: Who owns the hydrogen under the ground? Is it a mineral? Is it a gas? Is it something new? How do you lease it? How do you permit it on the back end? How do you make sure this thing is safe? What types of regulations? All of that is something we have to build and we have to build fast and thoughtfully.

I was excited for Governor Whitmer in Michigan to sign the first statewide executive directive that’s saying, “Hey, let’s be proactive about this industry. Let’s try to bring together our regulators so that we understand, before this industry really takes off, how and what are the best things to really build this going forward.” But in addition to regulations, we’re going to need other types of incentives, other ways in which we can pull this industry forward just like we did for shale. Just like we did for other subsurface industries.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, it’s so true. Regulators are almost always playing catch-up, and the idea of getting out ahead of a technology is super interesting, even if the technology is uncertain in how much it’s going to scale.

Ishan, this has been a fascinating conversation. I hope our audience has enjoyed learning a little bit about this new potential energy resource. It is really exciting.

Let me ask you now the last question we ask all of our guests, which is to recommend something that you’ve watched, or you’ve read, or you’ve heard or listened to, that you think is great and our audience might enjoy. So, what’s at the top of your literal or your metaphorical reading stack?

Ishan Sharma: I want to start with a podcast. Relatively recently I listened to a Hidden Brain episode by Shankar Vedantam on “Designing a Life that Matters,” and he had Dave Evans on, from the Stanford Life Design Lab team, talking about how many people feel that if they can just hit X milestone in their life, they’ll be happy. And how that, in the vast majority of experiences, doesn’t actually materialize. So, for myself, I try to focus on neglected issues. What is the mission while the actual journey is taking place? How can we build this thing up, and regardless of the end objective, deriving a lot of value. I highly recommend it to folks. It’s worth taking a look at.

For the more substantive or related to our field, I’m a huge Odd Lots fan. When I was in the White House, those were really good deep dives into whole new industries, thinking with a different lens about those industries, often.

And then the book recommendation, Daniel, this gets a lot of hate and it’s not exactly necessarily the easiest read, but the book Ministry for the Future. I’m not sure if you’ve … It gets a lot of things wrong, I think, and it oversimplifies a lot of societal interactions and how decisions are made. But it attempts to make a really complex world that is dealing with, like, “Oh my God, we had a massive climate catastrophe. How do we respond?” It prompted so many other independent thought exercises, both in circles I’m in and also just for myself, of how we can grapple with a changing climate as we’re seeing things becoming disastrous, and what would we really do? Who would need to do what? Anyway, those would be my three off the top.

Daniel Raimi: That’s great. It is a super provocative book. And we actually had Kim Stanley Robinson on the show to talk about the book several years ago when it came out.

Ishan Sharma: Awesome.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, people can go check it out. So, one more time, Ishan Sharma from Renaissance Philanthropy, thank you so much for coming onto Resources Radio and helping us learn about geologic hydrogen.

Ishan Sharma: Thanks for having me on, Daniel. It was a pleasure.

Daniel Raimi: You’ve been listening to Resources Radio, a podcast from Resources for the Future, or RFF. If you have a minute, we’d really appreciate you leaving us a rating or a comment on your podcast platform of choice. Also, feel free to send us your suggestions for future episodes.

This podcast is made possible with the generous financial support of our listeners. You can help us continue producing these kinds of discussions on the topics that you care about by making a donation to Resources for the Future online at rff.org/donate.

RFF is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Our mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement.

The views expressed on this podcast are solely those of the podcast guests and may differ from those of RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.

Resources Radio is produced by Elizabeth Wason, with music by me, Daniel Raimi. Join us next week for another episode.