2021 HE CleanH2Monitor 2021

MISSION - NO EMISSION
HYDROGEN EUROPE
CLEAN
HYDROGEN
MONITOR 2021
2 C L E A N H Y D R O G E N M O N I TO R 2 0 2 1 HYDROGEN EUROPE
F O R E WO R D
We cannot achieve climate neutrality without hydrogen
The past year has seen ever-increasing momentum Our hydrogen ambitions are within reach. Now it’s
for the hydrogen industry in Europe. From being time to turn ambition into concrete action via the
viewed as an innovative niche technology, hydro- development of a regulatory and incentives frame-
gen has become a key pillar in the European Union’s work that will facilitate the push for clean hydrogen
(EU) energy and climate policy and is recognised as to reach “fossil parity”, contribute to fighting cli-
a key enabler in the EU’s efforts to transition to a mate change, creating numerous new future jobs
climate-neutral society by 2050. and ultimately empower generations with clean en-
ergy forever. The time for hydrogen is now!
As an energy vector, hydrogen can unlock the full
potential of renewables, providing a means to trans-
fer energy across sectors, time, and place flexibly.
Using hydrogen technologies, we can contribute
to the decarbonisation of economies, notably with-
in industry and transport, thus making renewables
relevant in new areas not accessible in the past.
Furthermore, with hydrogen, we can store excess
electricity generated from renewable power, thus
providing grid balancing or seasonal storage whilst
making the overall energy system of the future more
efficient.
Europe is leading within hydrogen technologies,

and we must maintain this leadership position and
seize the current momentum. The EU has set ambi-
tious hydrogen targets for 2030, and I am certain
that with this 2nd edition of Hydrogen Europe’s
Clean Hydrogen Monitor, stakeholders from across
the globe have a unique reference point to inform
and update themselves on the latest hydrogen-re-
lated developments across the European continent. Jon André Løkke
President
Hydrogen Europe
C L E A N H Y D R O G E N M O N I TO R 2 0 2 1 3
What are the possibilities?

How much should we invest?
Will there be a balance between public funding and
private investment?
Which technology is ready enough?
Will we overcome the chicken and egg dilemma?
It’s coming closer! What are the volumes that we can expect?
Which concrete projects will be implemented at
what time?
As you read this foreword, the vision of a hydrogen If you want to answer these questions, you should
economy that contributes to massive mitigation of have a look at our annual data collection. This hydro-
climate effects is taking shape. gen monitor is the most comprehensive and deep-
est analysis of the hydrogen sector in Europe.
After years of maturing fundamental technological
applications over the whole value chain, after clear We hope it can act as a compass to guide you on
proposals on how to implement them in “real life”, your own hydrogen journey.
we now find ourselves in the midst of a disruptive
change of our energy and economic system. Stay at the forefront of these developments, enjoy
this document of change. And if you wish, help us
This system was based, in the past, on a linear idea; with your contributions to make it even better every
it was based on the growing use of fossil energy to year.
fuel economic growth. The link between fossil ex-
ploitation and growth has been stopped already Europe wants to become the first climate-neutral
due to the ever-larger role of renewable energy. continent on earth. Hydrogen is the hero net zero.
Hydrogen is ready! Are you?
Hydrogen allows us to implement ever-more circu-
lar elements into our energy, industry, mobility and
heating systems, even as we continue to sustain
economic growth. It enables us to harvest much
more results from the renewable revolution.
Climate, circularity and a real reset are the driving

forces for the hydrogen revolution, and we already
see how decision-makers are increasingly commit-
ting to taking this new course.
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
CEO
Hydrogen Europe
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
1 HYDROGEN DEMAND AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN THE EU 8
1.1 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CAPACITY 10
1.1.1 CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION CAPACITY 11
1.1.2 REFORMING WITH CARBON CAPTURE 14
1.1.3 POWER-TO-HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CAPACITY 14
1.2 HYDROGEN DEMAND 18
1.2.1 DEMAND BY SECTOR 18
1.2.2 DEMAND PER COUNTRY 20
1.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF HYDROGEN BY EU COUNTRIES 21
2 LEVELIZED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION COSTS IN THE EU 24
2.1 SMR BENCHMARK 27
2.2 GRID-CONNECTED ELECTROLYSIS 29
2.2.1 COSTS OF PRODUCTION 29
2.2.2 CARBON INTENSITY 32
2.3 DIRECT CONNECTION TO A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE 34
2.4 RENEWABLE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION COSTS DEVELOPMENTS 38
2.5 SUMMARY 41
3 PLANNED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 43
3.1 PLANNED POWER-TO-HYDROGEN PROJECTS 45
3.2 REFORMING WITH CARBON CAPTURE 55
3.3 HYDROGEN TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE 58
3.4 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 63
4 PLANNED HYDROGEN CONSUMPTION IN INDUSTRY 65
4.1 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN STEEL 70
4.2 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN E-FUELS 72
4.3 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN AMMONIA 74
4.4 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN REFINING 76
4.5 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN METHANOL 78

5 EU POLICIES AND INCENTIVES 80
5.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND PROPOSALS ADOPTED/PRESENTED IN 2020 AND 2021 82
5.1.1 EU CLIMATE LAW – A BINDING LEGAL ACT 83
5.1.2 THE FIT FOR-55 PACKAGE AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 84
5.1.3 TRANS-EUROPEAN NETWORK – ENERGY (TEN-E) PROPOSAL 88
5.2 NON-BINDING POLICIES AND STRATEGIES 89
5.3 EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FUTURE PERIOD (Q3 AND Q4 2021 AND 2022) 92
6 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 94
6.1 EU FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 96
6.1.1 ETS INNOVATION FUND 97
6.1.2 HORIZON EUROPE AND CLEAN HYDROGEN JU 97
6.1.3 MODERNISATION FUND 98
6.1.4 JUST TRANSITION FUND 99
6.1.5 CONNECTING EUROPE FACILITY – TRANSPORT AND ENERGY 99
6.1.6 EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND, COHESION FUND AND REACT-EU 100
6.1.7 INVESTEU 100
6.1.8 LIFE 101
6.2 RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE FACILITY AND NATIONAL PLANS 102
6.2.1 TOTAL ALLOCATIONS FOR HYDROGEN IN RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE PLANS 105
6.2.2 RRP ALLOCATIONS ALONG THE HYDROGEN VALUE CHAIN 107
TARGETS AND DEADLINES ASSOCIATED WITH RRP INVESTMENTS IN HYDROGEN

6.2.3 112
TECHNOLOGIES
6.2.4 A CLOSER LOOK AT THE MOST AMBITIOUS PLANS 112
6.2.5 IN A NUTSHELL 122
7 NATIONAL POLICIES AND INCENTIVES ON HYDROGEN 123
TECHNOLOGIES
7.1 POLICIES INCENTIVISING THE UPTAKE OF HYDROGEN IN MOBILITY 125
7.1.1. HYDROGEN REFUELLING INFRASTRUCTURE 125
7.1.2 FCEV ROAD TRANSPORT POLICIES 126
7.2 POLICIES IMPACTING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION 129
7.2.1. PRODUCTION SUPPORT 129
7.2.2 GAS GRID HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION 130
7.3 POLICIES SUPPORTING THE INTRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN IN INDUSTRY 131
8 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE 133

Our goal remains

to provide you, our
readers, with key
facts and figures
that may guide your
business or policy
decisions when
dealing with this
sector.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Chapter 1: Matus Muron and Grzegorz Pawelec

Chapter 2: Grzegorz Pawelec
Chapter 3: Matus Muron
Chapter 4: Joana Fonseca
Chapter 5: Alexandru Floristean and Bastien Bonnet-Cantalloube
Chapter 6: Priscilla Ferrari de Carvalho and Grzegorz Pawelec
Chapter 7: Matus Muron
Coordinator and Reviewer: Alexandru Floristean

Editors: Amy Allsop and Michela Bortolotti
WWW.HYDROGENEUROPE.EU Visual design: Tomasz Peukert (peukert@madebymade.pl)

INTRODUCTION
The second edition of the yearly Clean Hydrogen Monitor
continues our ambition to shed light on some of the key
indicators affecting the nascent (and growing) market
for clean hydrogen.
Similar to last years’ edition, the focus of our report ∙ Chapter 3 presents the plans for producing re-
is on hydrogen, which contributes to the achieve- newable and low-carbon hydrogen in Europe
ment of the EU’s climate ambitions, particularly ∙ Chapter 4 analyses the plans to consume re-
the goal of ensuring net-zero emissions by 2050. newable hydrogen by industry
∙ Chapter 5 looks at the EU policies which have
This means, in practice, presenting quantitative and a direct and strong impact on the adoption of
qualitative indicators which shed light on the state- clean hydrogen in Europe
of-play of the introduction of renewable and ∙ Chapter 6 presents the Funding opportunities
low-carbon hydrogen as a replacement to fossil available to hydrogen in the short and medi-
fuel-based “grey” hydrogen, but also, but also as a um-term, in particular from EU funding instru-
replacement to other fossil fuels in all sectors where ments as well as from the implementation of
hydrogen can play a significant role in achieving a the Recovery and Resilience Facility
net-zero economy, such as the replacement of coal ∙ Chapter 7 looks deeper into national policies
in the steel sector, of heavy fuel oil and liquified nat- and incentives that can already support the up-
ural gas in the maritime sector, diesel and petrol in take of clean hydrogen and hydrogen technol-
the transport sector, of kerosene in aviation, of natu- ogies.
ral gas in heating and other industrial uses.
As a yearly report, we intend to track developments
In order to achieve this goal, we have structured our and, especially, to highlight the changes that have
report in the following manner: occurred since our last edition. As such, some chap-
ters of our report (for example, our presentation of
∙ Chapter 1 contains information on the current EU policies) should not be understood as compre-
hydrogen production capacity and demand hensive but as an “update” of the most important
in the European Union, European Free Trade developments since our last edition.
Agreement (EFTA) countries and the UK
∙ Chapter 2 analyses the hydrogen production We hope that you will find our report insightful and
costs with a strong focus on renewable hydrogen wish you a very pleasant read.
H Y D ROGEN
D EM A ND AND
SU PPLY IN THE EU
The following chapter contains information about
current hydrogen production capacity and demand in
the European Union, EFTA, and the UK. The information
presented in this document refers to data as of the end
of 2019 unless otherwise specified.
The hydrogen production section of this report pro- The hydrogen demand section of this report pro-
vides information about current production capac- vides information about the quantities of hydrogen
ities, expressed in million tonnes (Mt) per year or (expressed in million tonnes) that were consumed by
MW of all identified hydrogen production plants in different end-use sectors in 2019.
Europe, divided by:
∙ country of production,
∙ employed technology of hydrogen production
with a special focus on clean hydrogen produc-
tion capacities, and
∙ type of production (captive consumption, mer-
chant, or by-product).
For more detailed data on each

country, see the Fuel Cell and
Hydrogen Observatory database
at: https://fchobservatory.eu
1.1 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

CAPACITY
In total, 536 hydrogen production sites have been For reference, the EU Hydrogen Strategy has de-
identified to be in operation in Europe at the end fined a renewable hydrogen production target for
of 2019, with a total production capacity of 12.1 2030 at 10 million tonnes. This is almost equivalent
Mt per year. Excluding by-product hydrogen gen- to the total current hydrogen production capacity
erated as part of coke oven gas (COG), the hydro- that has been developed over several decades.
gen production capacity amounts to a total of
10.5 Mt of hydrogen per year spread across Countries with the largest hydrogen production
!"#$%&'()'*+,-.'/01%+#&2'3%+1$
504 production points. Based on the estimated capacity are Germany, Netherlands, Poland, and
size of the hydrogen consumption in 2019 (see the Spain. These four countries account for 50% of the
following subchapter), the average production ca- total EU, EFTA, and the UK hydrogen production
pacity utilisation in 2019 was 80%. capacity. Figure 1 provides an overview of total hy-
drogen production capacity by country and by pro-
duction type.
Figure 1 Total hydrogen production capacity by country
Captive
By-Product
Merchant
Captive By-Product Merchant
2,500,000
2,000,000
Tonnes per year
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Germany
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
Italy
France
Un ited Kingdom
Belgium
Norway
Lithuania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Finland
Romania
Slovakia
Sweden
Greece
Austria
Portugal
Croatia
Czechia
Switzerland
Slovenia
Ireland
Denmark
Source: Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory

Figure 2 provides an overview of hydrogen pro- 1.1.1 CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION

duction capacity (excluding coke oven gas hydro- CAPACITY
gen) as of 2019 split between different production
technologies. The ”thermal” production methods The conventional hydrogen production capacity
(reforming, partial oxidation, by-product production includes reforming, partial oxidation, by-product
from refining operations, and by-product production production from refining operations, by-product
from ethylene and styrene) constitute 95.5% of total production from ethylene and styrene, and by-prod-
capacity. By-product electrolysis (i.e., capacity from uct electrolysis from chlor-alkali and sodium chlorate
chlor-alkali and sodium chlorate processes) accounts processes.
for 3.9%. Reforming with carbon capture provides
0.5% of total hydrogen production capacity. Pow- The most common technology for producing hydro-
er-to-hydrogen accounted for only 0.1% of total gen is steam reforming of natural gas (SMR). Less
hydrogen production capacity as of 2019. common are partial oxidation (POX) and autother-
mal reforming (ATR). They are widely used for all ap-
-#&.'#&.&%/0"-.'1/2/1"0+'3+'0&14
This report further splits these volumes and provides plications ranging from refining, ammonia produc-
information on conventional hydrogen production tion, or any other large scale hydrogen production.
capacity, reforming with carbon capture, and pow- Even though natural gas is the most common feed,
er-to-hydrogen facilities more specifically. The ther- steam reforming is also used with other feeds, in-
mal and by-product electrolysis categories form the cluding liquid hydrocarbons like LPG or naphtha.
conventional category used below.
The conventional hydrogen

production capacity adds
up to 10.5 Mt of hydrogen
per year spread across 406
production points1 .
Figure 2 Hydrogen generation capacity by technology
Thermal
By-product electrolysis
Reforming (carbon capture)
Power-to-hydrogen
3.9%
95.5% 0.5%
0.1%

Thermal By-product electrolysis Reforming (carbon capture) Power-to-hydrogen
1
Excluding by-product hydrogen generated as part of coke oven gas (COG)
Conventional production capacity is divided into all hydrogen production capacity (7.6 Mt per year
three main categories: captive production facilities2, in 157 production plants5) were dedicated for on-
merchant production facilities3, and plants, where site captive consumption as of 2019. Ammonia and
hydrogen production is a by-product of other pro- refineries both account for 3.4 Mt each, 0.7 Mt is
cesses. The boundaries between the three hydrogen dedicated to methanol and other chemicals, and
production types used for this report are explained additional smaller capacities are allocated for facil-
in the Methodological Note at the end of the report. ities where a high volume of hydrogen consumption
Figure 4 visualises the share of the different catego- justifies an investment in a dedicated hydrogen gen-
ries. Captive production capacity accounted for 72% eration unit.
of total conventional hydrogen production capacity.
Most of the captive hydrogen production capacity Hydrogen production as
is for refining, ammonia production, and chemical a by-product
industries. The by-product production capacity in- Hydrogen as a by-product6 of other processes is
cludes hydrogen from refining4, ethylene, styrene, produced at 143 plants. Total by-product hydrogen
chlor-alkali process, and sodium chlorate produc- production capacity has been estimated at 1.5 Mt
tion. per year (around 14% of total production capacity),
including:
Captive hydrogen production ∙ 0.65 Mt per year of by-product hydrogen
On-site captive hydrogen production is the most capacity from refining processes7
common method of hydrogen supply. Two-thirds of
Figure 3 Identified conventional hydrogen production sites
By-product
Captive
Merchant
2
On-site hydrogen production of hydrogen for own consumption.
3
Hydrogen production dedicated for sales.
4
The by-product refining share is significantly larger in reality, but accurate data is not yet available for all refineries. The rest of these amounts are thus
captured as part of captive hydrogen production capacity.
5
Excluding water electrolysis
6
Excluding by-product hydrogen generated as part of coke oven gas (COG)
7
The by-product refining share is significantly larger in reality, but accurate data is not yet available for all refineries. The rest of these amounts are thus
captured as part of captive hydrogen production capacity.
∙ 0.4 Mt per year of by-product hydrogen capac- Merchant hydrogen production

ity from ethylene production Another large group of conventional hydrogen pro-
%$,+$%&'-.',-/0&/+"-/12
∙ 0.21 Mt per year of by-product hydrogen duction are merchant plants which produce hydro-
capacity from the chlor-alkali process gen mostly for external sales. This report estimates
∙ 0.15 Mt per year of by-product hydrogen that there were 106 conventional merchant hydro-
capacity from styrene production gen plants operational in Europe in 20199. They rep-
∙ 0.04 Mt per year of by-product hydrogen resent 14% of the total hydrogen production capac-
capacity from sodium chlorate production. ity (1.5 Mt per year).
,161,"+4'74'+46&
The largest amount of by-product hydrogen produc- Merchant hydrogen plants can be divided into two
tion capacity is in refineries from catalytic reforming main sub-categories. In the first category are plants
and other processes. dedicated to supplying a single large-scale consum-
er with only excess capacity available to supply the
Another potentially significant source of hydrogen is retail hydrogen market. In the second category are
coke oven gas. Coke oven gas is used to enrich the small and medium scale hydrogen production sites
calorific value of the other process gases for use in designed to supply retail customers primarily. While
blast furnace stoves, at the reheating furnaces of the merchant plants dedicated to a single large consum-
hot strip mills, for the under firing of coke ovens, and er are comparable in size to captive hydrogen pro-
other high-temperature processes. The surplus COG duction facilities, purely merchant plants supplying
may be utilised at the blast furnace as an alternative retail customers tend to be significantly smaller.10
reducing agent and used in power plants8. While hy-
drogen generally comprises 55%-65% of coke oven The merchant hydrogen market in Europe is led by
gas, it is extracted and separated from the mix in four companies: Air Liquide, Air Products, Linde, and
rare cases. Therefore, while it is important to men- Messer. Their assets constitute 90% of capacity and
tion, it is not included in the hydrogen production 81% of total merchant hydrogen production plants.
capacity numbers above.
Figure 4 Structure of conventional hydrogen production capacity by type
14%
Captive
By-Product
Merchant
14%
72%
Captive By-Product Merchant

8
R. Remus, M. A. A. Monsonet, S. Roudier y L. D. Sancho, «Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron and Steel Production,» JRC
Reference Report, 2013.
9
Excluding water electrolysis
10
D. Pichota, L. Granadosa, T. Morela, A. Schullera, R. Dubettiera, F. Lockwood, “Start-up of Port-Jérôme CRYOCAP Plant: Optimized Cryogenic CO2
Capture from H2 Plants”, Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 2682 – 2689.
1.1.2 REFORMING WITH CARBON The total share of reforming with carbon capture
CAPTURE from methane with CCS/CCU (also known as “blue”
hydrogen) in all hydrogen production capacity was
In 2019, out of the 504 identified hydrogen produc- 0.5% of the total.
tion plants, only three were using carbon capture
technologies: 1.1.3 POWER-TO-HYDROGEN
∙ Air Liquide CRYOCAP installation in Port Je- PRODUCTION CAPACITY
rome, France, capturing CO2 from the hydro-
gen production plant, which supplies hydrogen While power-to-hydrogen technology has been
to an Exxon refinery. The CRYOCAP technolo- available and utilised for decades, it is only now
gy uses cryogenic purification to separate CO2 emerging as a future large-scale hydrogen produc-
from the PSA off-gas. The captured and lique- tion technology. Traditionally, power-to-hydrogen
fied CO2 is delivered to the local beverage in- has been employed in some industries where hy-
dustry. The installation is capable of capturing drogen demand exceeded the economic feasibility
up to 3,000 tonnes of CO2 per day, but its uti- of hydrogen deliveries in cylinders or tube trailers.
lised capture is significantly smaller. However, the demand was insufficient to invest in
∙ Shell refinery in Rotterdam, where CO2 from a steam methane reformer and associated on-site
hydrogen production is captured as part of the infrastructure. The most common examples include
OCAP project11 electrolysers installed for captive hydrogen produc-
!"#$%&'()'*$+$,-."/&'"01.-,,&2'
∙ Grupo Sappio hydrogen production unit in tion at food processing facilities (fat hardening),
Mantova, Italy, with a hydrogen production ca- glass manufacturers, merchant production, or power
pacity of around 1,500 Nm3/h plants where hydrogen is used for cooling purposes.
:;<':!=><';?
Figure 5 Cumulative installed power-to-hydrogen capacity in EU, EFTA, UK (MW)
160
135
140
120
100
100 90
MW
80
60
40
20
0
2019 2020 2021
Source: Hydrogen Europe
11
More information available at: https://www.ocap.nl/
As of August 2021, Hydrogen Europe identified fining, merchant sales, industrial manufacturing, mo-
129 PtH sites in operation in the EU, EFTA, and UK bility, and others. Germany accounts for 44% of the
amounting to 135 MWel. So far, they are a marginal identified capacity and 29% of projects in the EU,
part of the market, constituting only 0.1% of total in- EFTA, and the UK. Other countries with significant
stalled hydrogen production capacity. A large num- installed capacity are France with 11 MW, Switzer-
ber of these installations have been built as demon- land with 10 MW, Sweden, United Kingdom, and
stration projects, but several commercial multi-MW Finland with 9 MW each, and Austria with 7 MW.
projects became operational in 2019. Figure 5
shows the cumulative installed power-to-hydrogen
capacity from 2019 to 2021. The total installed ca-
pacity has increased by 45 MW between 2019 and
2021. Chapter 3 will provide further information on
planned PtH projects in the short, medium, and long
term. Hydrogen Europe acknowledges that there
9:
are numerous smaller operational power-to-hydro-
gen facilities in the tens or hundreds of kW range
that have not been included in the numbers below.
Use cases of the identified projects range from re-
Figure 6 Countries with the highest installed PtH capacity in 2021
70
59
60
50
40
Capacity (MW)
30
20
11 10 9 9 9
7
10
0
DE FR CH SE UK FI AT

Figure 7 provides details on the electrolyser tech- Figure 9 provides details about the electricity source
nology data available for 89 projects representing of operational PtH projects regardless of whether
114 MW of the operational PtH capacity. PEM elec- they use a direct or a grid connection. The electricity
trolysers constitute 55% or 62 MW of currently op- source information is available for 116 MW and 101
erational capacity, while ALK accounts for 44% or projects. 46% or 53 MW come from unspecified re-
50 MW.12 The numbers are largely similar in terms of newable sources. Wind constitutes 29% or 34 MW.
projects, with 47 projects or 53% using PEM technol- The “other” category refers to grid mix or electric-
ogy and 38 projects or 43% using ALK technology.13 ity from incineration plants and comprises 15% or
17 MW of capacity. Overall, 85% of PtH capacity and
Figure 8 provides details about the electricity con- 94% of projects are powered by renewable electrici-
nection of operational PtH projects. They are domi- ty either directly or via a power purchase agreement.
nated by grid connections providing 65% or 85 MW
of PtH capacity and 68% or 88 projects. Direct con-
nection to a renewable energy source accounts for
31% or 34 MW of capacity and 28% or 36 projects.
!"#$%&'()'*+&%,-"./,0'&0&1-%.023&%
-&14/.0.#2'5
Projects with both a direct and grid connection are
less common for the time being, with only five MW
split among five projects.
+%.7&1-8
Figure 7 Operational electrolyser technology by capacity and projects
100% 2 3
90%
80%
50 38
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
62 47
20%
10%
0%
Capacity (MW
Capacity )
(MW) # #ofof projects
projects
PEM ALK SO
12
Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding
13
Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding
!"#$%&'(')*&+,%"+",-'+.//&+,"./'.0'.1&%
Figure 8 Electricity connection of operational PtH projects
100%
5 5
90%
80% 42 36
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 88 88
20%
10%
0%
Capacity (MW)
Capacity (MW) ##of
of projects
projects
!"#$%&'(')*&+,%"+",-'./$%+&'/0'/1&%2
Grid Direct Direct and grid
Grid Direct Direct and grid
Figure 9 Electricity source of62

operational electrolysers
100%
4
4 15
90% 4
! 17 5
80%
5
6
70%
60% 34 22
50%
40%
30%
20% 53 48
10%
0%
Capacity (MW) # of projects
Unspecified and other renewable Wind Other
Solar + wind Hydro Solar

1.2 HYDROGEN DEMAND
1.2.1 DEMAND BY SECTOR REFINING
Total demand for hydrogen in 2019 has been esti- The refining sector is the biggest hydrogen con-
The biggest share mated at 8.4 Mt. The biggest share of hydrogen de- sumer in the EU. Hydrogen in refineries is used for
of hydrogen mand comes from refineries, which were responsible hydrotreating and hydrocracking processes. Hydro-
demand comes for 49% of total hydrogen use (~4.1 Mt), followed by treatment is one of the key stages of the diesel refin-
from refineries, the ammonia industry with 31% (~2.6 Mt). Together ing process and relates to several processes such as
which were these two sectors consumed almost 80% of total hy- hydrogenation, hydrodesulfurisation, hydrodenitrifi-
responsible drogen consumption in the EU, EFTA, and UK. The cation, and hydrodemetalization. Hydrocracking in-
for 49% of chemical industry consumes about 13%. volves transforming long and unsaturated products
total hydrogen into products with a lower molecular weight than
use (~4.1 Mt), Emerging hydrogen applications for clean hydro- the feed. Based on gathered information about hy-
followed by the gen, like the transportation sector, comprised in drogen production capacities at refineries, together
ammonia industry 2019 only a minuscule portion of the market (<0.1%). with information about their capacity utilisation, this
with 31% report estimates that the total hydrogen demand
(~2.6 Mt). from the oil refining and petrochemical industry was
!"#$%&'()*'+,-./'0&1.20'3,%'450%,#&2'"2'6) 4.1 Mt in 2019.
Figure 10 Total demand for hydrogen in 2019 by application
Refining 4,080,239
Ammonia 2,580,520
Other chemicals 688,062
Other 444,376
Methanol 417,461
Energy 103,367
H2O2 61,463
Transport 1,545
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

AMMONIA OTHER
The ammonia industry is the second-largest hydro- There are several other uses of hydrogen. In glass
gen consuming sector in the EU. The ammonia pro- manufacturing, hydrogen is used as an inerting or
duction process involves a synthesis of hydrogen protective gas. In food processing, hydrogen is used
with nitrogen with a consumption of 175-180 kg of for margarine production by hydrogenating fatty ac-
hydrogen per t of ammonia. Total demand for hy- ids in vegetable oils. It is also used for energy by
drogen by the ammonia industry in 2019 has been either burning it in boilers, using it in combined heat
estimated at 2.6 Mt. and power units, using it in a fuel cell to generate
heat and electricity, or using it for generator cool-
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ing. It is also used as a fuel either in a fuel cell or by
burning it in a combustion engine, but these appli-
Other than ammonia, hydrogen is a required feed- cations are only starting to become commonplace.
stock or intermediate product necessary for other
chemical products, including methanol, hydrogen
peroxide, cyclohexane, aniline, caprolactam, oxo al-
cohols, toluene diisocyanate (TDI), hexamethylene-
diamine, adipic acid, hydrochloric acid, tetrahydro-
furan, and others.
)(7'85'.99/":.-",2 Total demand for hydrogen from the chemical indus-

try (excluding ammonia production) has been esti-
mated at 1.2 Mt in 2019.
Refining, ammonia production, and other chemical

industries are together responsible for around 92%
of the total demand for hydrogen. The remaining
demand comes from the following applications:
STEEL MANUFACTURING AND

METALS PROCESSING
A mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen (5% to 7% H2) is

used commonly as an inert protective atmosphere in
conventional batch annealing in annealing furnaces.
Batch annealing with 100 % hydrogen is also possi-
ble, resulting in better productivity, improved me-
chanical properties, and surface and product quali-
ty. Using hydrogen for the Direct Reduction of Iron
(DRI) is another important future driver of hydrogen
consumption in steel production, with the Hybrit
project in Sweden having produced its first hydro-
gen reduced sponge iron in 2021. For more details
on future industrial demand for low-carbon hydro-
gen in steel production, please consult Chapter 4.
1.2.2 DEMAND PER COUNTRY More than half of the total

EU, EEA and UK hydrogen
More than half of the total EU, EEA and UK hydro-
gen consumption takes place in just four countries: consumption takes place
Germany (20%), the Netherlands (15%), Poland (9%), in just four countries:
and Spain (7%). Germany (20%), the
Similarly to the overall results for the entire geo- Netherlands (15%), Poland
graphic scope of this report, in most countries, the (9%), and Spain (7%).
dominant hydrogen demand comes from the refin-
ing industry. In some countries like Spain, Italy, Fin-
land, Greece, or Portugal, refining is responsible for
most domestic hydrogen consumption. In the case
of Poland and Lithuania, a significant percentage of
hydrogen demand comes from the ammonia indus-
try.
!"#$%&'(()'*+,-.'/&0-1/'2+%'34/%+#&
Figure 11 Total demand for hydrogen in 2019 by country
1,800, 000
1,600, 000
1,400, 000
1,200, 000
Tonnes per year
1,000, 000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
-
he any
Po ds
Sp d
ain
Fr ly
ite B nce
ng m
N m
Fi ay
th d
H ania
m y
Bu nia
Sl aria
G kia
Sw ece
Au en
Cr tria
Po atia
Sw zec l
itz hia
en d
I nia
xe nd
Ire rg
La d
Es v ia
L i Cy ia
en s
M in
ta
ov k
C ga
ht pru
Ro gar
Sl ar
lan
Li n
D l an
n
Ita
e
al
n
do
bu
Ki iu
w
n
ed
la
a
L u c ela
a
t
m
e
a
st
to
s
rtu
N erm
re
rla
lg
a
o
or
d elg
nl
ov
u
un
er
m
G
et
ec
Un
Refining Ammonia Other chemicals Methanol H2O2

Energy Transport Other

1.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF

HYDROGEN BY EU COUNTRIES
This sub-chapter refers to data for 2020, unlike most years, the volume of hydrogen trade in 2020 fell by
of the used data in the chapters above that refers over 80%. This could have been due to Covid-19,
to 2019. As in previous years, only a relatively small but given the relatively small volumes concerned,
portion of annual hydrogen production was subject any variation from several industrial sites supplied
to international trade in 2020. The total amount of through pipelines from a plant in a different country
hydrogen exported in 2020 by EU countries both could have had that kind of effect.
to other EU member states as well as externally
amounted to 0.013 Mt, which is less than 0.2% of Most of this trade occurred within the EU, with only
total hydrogen consumption. This figure is very low 696 tonnes (5%) exported to countries outside of
compared to previous years. From 2010 to 2018, EU the EU in 2020. Hydrogen imports from outside of
countries usually exported between 0.06 and 0.08 the EU are equally unimportant, with only around 87
Mt of hydrogen while the year 2019 saw a record tonnes imported into the EU in 2020, of which 2/3
volume of export of over 0.1 Mt. Compared to those were from Switzerland.
Figure 12 Hydrogen exports reported by EU countries
120, 000
100, 000
Tonnes per year
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: EUROSTAT international trade database

Figure 13 Exports of hydrogen by EU member states in 202014
Source: Hydrogen Europe, based on EUROSTAT international trade database
For visibility purposes the figure only shows flows of hydrogen of more than 10 tonnes per year. The exports from Belgium to the Netherlands (shown in orange)
14
have been scaled down by a factor of 10x.

By far the biggest exporter of hydrogen in 2020 in The volume of trade has an obvious correlation with
the EU was Belgium with over 6 thousand tonnes the price of hydrogen. In cases where trade con-
(44% of total EU hydrogen exports), followed by the cerns only small amounts of hydrogen, it is usually
Netherlands (3,500 tonnes and 25%) and Germany high purity grade hydrogen 5.0 (99.999%) or high-
(1,100 tonnes and 8%). Over 55% of all trade be- er, sold in small quantities in pressurised contain-
tween EU countries involves The Netherlands, Bel- ers for such applications like laboratory analysis.
gium and France, which are interconnected with a The price of such highly pure hydrogen can exceed
hydrogen pipeline network, owned and operated by 30 EUR/kg. Higher volumes are distributed with
Air Liquide. cylinders or tube trailers with a much lower price of
5 – 15 EUR/kg. Hydrogen prices distributed via pipe-
Excluding trade between those three countries, most lines are set by SMR production costs, which in
of the remaining hydrogen exports by EU member 2020, due to low natural gas prices, were around
states in 2020 went from the Netherlands to Ger- 1.0 – 1.2 EUR/kg. The significant increase in meth-
many (1,000 tonnes) and from Sweden to Denmark ane prices in 2021 is likely to have an important im-
(900 tonnes). Trade between all the other EU coun- pact on this indicator; however, data relative to hy-
tries rarely exceeded 100-200 tonnes per year. drogen prices in 2021 was not available at the time
%&'()*'+,&%-#&'././'012%3#&4'5%"6&'"4'
of drafting this report.
2&5&42"4#'34'-44$-8',38$:&'3;'7%
Figure 14 Average 2020 hydrogen price in international trade, depending on annual volume of trade
> 5,000t 1.3

Trade volume per year
1,000-5, 000t 4.4
100-1,000t 4.6
10-100t 5.4
1-10t 9.5
0.1 - 1t 33.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Average price in EUR/KG
Source: Hydrogen Europe based on Eurostat data

LEVEL I ZED
HY D RO GEN
P ROD UC TION
COSTS IN THE EU
The following chapter contains an estimation
of current (2020) electrolytic and renewable
hydrogen production costs in the EU, as well as
a brief assessment of the development of those
costs over the past years and expected near-
future developments.
The goal of this analysis is to track the development While undoubtedly, in the direct connection sce-
of those costs to compare them with several bench- nario, 100% of the electrolyser’s output is renew-
marks, most crucially – the costs of hydrogen pro- able, in the case of an electrolyser connected to
duction using the incumbent fossil-fuel technology, the grid, by default, the produced hydrogen is as
which is steam methane reforming without CCS (so- renewable and as carbon-intensive as the electrici-
called “grey” or “fossil” hydrogen). ty supplied to it by the grid.
Therefore, the ultimate purpose of this analysis is to Although electricity supplied by the grids is far from
help calculate the current cost gap that needs to be being fully decarbonised in many EU countries, this
bridged to make unsubsidised electrolytic hydrogen scenario has merit even in high carbon-intensive
production competitive in the EU. electricity grids. An increasing amount of intermit-
The production costs were estimated for two sce- tent renewable energy sources, like wind and solar,
narios: can pose several challenges for the grid operators,
∙ Electrolyser using grid electricity. including load and generation imbalances and grid
∙ A direct, physical connection between a re- congestion issues. Both of which can result in re-
newable electricity source (RES) and the elec- newable energy curtailment.
trolyser.
The ultimate purpose of this

analysis is to help calculate
the current cost gap that
needs to be bridged in
order to make unsubsidized
electrolytic hydrogen
production competitive
in the EU
Located strategically, electrolysers can produce hy- In the coming years, grid-connected PtH plants
drogen at times when the renewable production should be able to produce 100% renewable hy-
exceeds grid export capacity avoiding curtailment drogen using grid electricity and a combination of
of wind and solar energy, especially if hydrogen Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) signed with a
infrastructures (transport and/or storage) are made renewable energy producer and Certificates of Or-
available. When addressing long-term (structural) igin (GO) to prove the renewable character of the
congestions, strategically placed, large scale elec- electricity consumed. Nevertheless, since the legal
trolysis installations would not only benefit from the framework and market conditions for such a scenario
economies of scale but could help balance the en- are not yet in place, such a scenario was not includ-
tire grid and not only a single RES. In cases where ed in the quantitative analysis at this point.
Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH) installations would be dis-
patched by the TSO/DSO specifically to address the For both scenarios, key techno-economic parame-
RES curtailment issue, it would make sense for the ters of the electrolysis were adopted based on cur-
produced hydrogen to be viewed as entirely renew- rent state-of-the-art 10,000 kW alkaline electrolysis.
able, even when connected to a high carbon-inten- For detailed techno-economic assumptions, see the
sive electricity grid. Methodological Note.
Electrolysers can also serve as a variable load, fol- The analysis in this chapter is based on data for which
lowing signals from electricity transmission system a complete yearly dataset is available, i.e., 2020. As
operators to provide frequency reserves such as FCR 2021 saw a significant increase of both natural gas
or as an FRR, voltage control and even synthetic in- prices as well as electricity prices across Europe,
ertia, as today other technologies already offer (e.g., driven by a surge in demand for energy, bottlenecks
power generators, demand response, battery stor- on the supply side and partially by higher CO2 pric-
age). Some of these capabilities have been tested es, the landscape for hydrogen production costs
and demonstrated in various European projects. and their competitive position against fossil fuels is
likely to look very different in next year’s analysis.
Table 1 Key distinctions between the two hydrogen production scenarios
Criteria Grid connected electrolysis Direct connection to RES
Carbon intensity of the grid (based on

Carbon intensity Zero-carbon (100% renewable)
most recent EEA15 assessment)
RES Levelized cost of electricity (own

Wholesale electricity price (based
estimation of LCOE based on most
Electricity costs on data obtained from the ENTSO-e
recent IRENA RES deployment costs
Transparency Portal)
data)
Network costs, taxes and Applicable (based on data obtained

Not applicable
fees from Eurostat)
Scale 10.0 MW electrolysis 10.0 MW electrolysis
Equal to the capacity factor of the RES

Capacity factor 4,000 off-peak hours
it is connected to.16
15
EEA = European Environment Agency (https://www.eea.europa.eu/)
16
Only in case when the electrolyser’s power is equal to that of the RES. When the size of an electrolyser is smaller than RES, its capacity factor can be significantly
increased.
2.1 SMR BENCHMARK

As has been noted in the market analysis section, In 2020 we estimate that, on average, the levelized
currently ‘grey’ hydrogen, produced from fossil fuels production costs of hydrogen by SMR in the EU-27
– most commonly from natural gas via steam meth- were approximately 1.41 EUR/kg of H2. Further-
ane reforming - accounts for an overwhelming por- more, as SMR plants are already operational (and in
tion of hydrogen production in the EU (and world- many cases long amortised), marginal - not levelized
wide). Replacing that fossil fuel made hydrogen, - costs may, in many cases, be a better benchmark.
therefore, presents the most immediate market op- Excluding the impact of CAPEX (amortisation), esti-
portunity for renewable hydrogen. As a result, pro- mated grey hydrogen marginal production costs in
duction costs of hydrogen through the SMR process the EU-27 in 2020 were around 1.16 EUR/kg.
provide a useful price benchmark for all alternative,
clean hydrogen production technologies.
Figure 15 Average hydrogen production costs via SMR in the EU-27 in 2020 (in EUR/kg)
1.60
0.24 1.41
1.40
1.20 0.15 1.16
0.22
1.00
0.80 0.79
0.60
0.40
0.20
-
Natural gas CO2 allowances Other costs Marginal costs Amortization Total costs
Source: Hydrogen Europe.

Even though costs of CO2 allowances were start- Replacing grey hydrogen is
ing to rise in 2020, a decrease in natural gas prices, by far not the only business
which occurred as a result of the economic down-
turn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, more than case for clean hydrogen.
made up for the CO2 allowances price rise. As a re- In the case of numerous
sult, grey hydrogen production costs in 2020 were other applications – most
significantly lower than in previous years.
notably in the road mobility
However, it should be noted that replacing grey hy- sector – the break-even
drogen is by far not the only business case for clean price for hydrogen might be
hydrogen. In the case of numerous other applica-
tions – most notably in the road mobility sector – the significantly higher than the
break-even price for hydrogen might be significantly grey hydrogen production
higher than the grey hydrogen production price lev- price level.
el. Furthermore, existing and proposed legislation,
e.g., the RED II directive, create additional demand
for clean hydrogen, for which clean hydrogen no
longer competes with grey hydrogen.
Figure 16 Average hydrogen production costs via SMR in the EU-27 in 2018-2020 (in EUR/kg)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1 Total costs
0.8 Marginal costs
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2018 2019 2020
11
Source: ENTSO-e transparency portal for wholesale electricity prices and EUROSTAT for electricity network costs, fees and taxes for 20,000 – 69,999 MWh
energy consumption band.
2.2 GRID-CONNECTED
ELECTROLYSIS
2.2.1 COSTS OF PRODUCTION the other end of the spectrum are the Scandinavian
countries: Norway (1.8 EUR/kg), Sweden (2.0 EUR/kg),
The hydrogen production costs using grid elec- Finland (2.3 EUR/kg) and Denmark (2.5 EUR/kg). The
tricity in the EU (together with Norway) in 2020 only other country outside of Scandinavia where the
have been estimated in the range of 1.8-7.7 EUR/kg costs of producing hydrogen using grid electricity
(compared to 2.6 – 9.5 in 2019), with the average are as low is Luxemburg, with costs estimated at
for all countries being 3.75 EUR/kg and a median of 2.3 EUR/kg.
3.5 EUR/kg (4.7 and 4.2 respectively in 2019).
The highest costs of grid electricity hydrogen pro-

duction are in Cyprus (7.7 EUR/kg) and Germany
(7.2 EUR/kg), followed by Malta with 6.3 EUR/kg. On
Figure 17 Map of grid-connected electrolysis hydrogen production costs in the EU in 2020

There are at least a couple of reasons why such large borne by the German end-users, with very low taxes
differences between countries exist. The most obvi- and grid fees applied in Luxembourg. As a result, it
ous one is the difference between wholesale elec- is one of the cheapest countries to produce hydro-
tricity prices, which has the biggest contribution to gen with grid-connected electrolysis in the EU, with
the final cost of hydrogen in most countries. High total costs more than three times lower than Germa-
wholesale electricity prices explain to a large extent ny, which has the same electricity prices.
the high hydrogen cost in Cyprus and Malta, where
the wholesale electricity prices are among the high- It should also be noted that one of the key contribu-
est in Europe. Yet, in the case of Germany, the hy- tors to grid fees in Germany is the renewable energy
drogen production costs are one of the highest even surcharge (EEG surcharge). If the electricity supplied
though it has one of the lowest wholesale electricity via the grid were of renewable origin, this surcharge
prices in Europe. The reason why hydrogen pro- would not apply, significantly reducing the impact of
duction costs in Germany are so high is high taxes grid fees on hydrogen production costs in Germany
charged on top of wholesale electricity price, which and lowering the total production costs to around
in this case constitute around 58% of the total cost, 4.4 EUR/kg (close to EU average).
while in Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and Malta, the con-
tribution of taxes to the final hydrogen production The following figure shows calculated hydrogen
costs are only around 1-3%. generation costs in the EU, based on wholesale elec-
tricity prices and network costs and fees for 2020.17
It is especially interesting to compare costs in Ger- The above calculations were based on the assump-
many to those in Luxembourg. As Luxembourg is tion that the electrolyser would run on average
participating in a single energy grid with Germany, around 4,000 hours per year, in off-peak hours,
it enjoys the same low wholesale electricity prices as when the wholesale electricity prices are lowest.
Germany, thanks to high penetration of cheap re- This is close to optimum for most EU countries. If
newables. However, most of the balancing costs are
Figure 18 Comparison of hydrogen production costs via grid-connected electrolysis in Germany and Luxembourg
-'*93<, =+)6/$$-/18*(63*;' -'*93<, =+)6>8)

-'*93<,$$-/=+)6/$$-/18*(63*;'
18*(63*;' -'*93<, =+)6>8) $$-/ 18*(63*;'
=+)6/$$-/18*(63*;' -'*93<, =+)6>8) $$
784'9:8*; 784'9:8*; 784'9:8*;
Luxemburg Germany with EEG surcharge Germany without EEG surcharge
4.16 0.33 7.17 4.16 0.33 7.17 4.16 0.33 7.17
1.39 0.33 4.4 1.39 0.33 4.4 1.3

1.26 1.260.33 2.27 1.26 1.26 0.33 2.27 1.26 0.33 2.27 1.26
0.47 0.05 0.47 0.05 0.47 0.05
.87 0.870.87 0.87 0.87
0.87 0.87
0.87 0.87
0.54
0.54 0.54
0.54 0.54 0.54
0.54 0.54
L
EL
TA L
c tr E X
Ele PEXX
y
id city
GrC icity
s
ss
axiteys
s
TO x e s
rO X
L
TAL
L
EleCAP X
feEeX
Ele PEX
Electri X
X
Ele ity
ctr ity
ctr city
y
y
s
lercid s
xeXs
s
Ta X
id es
s
PE X
TO X
es
Ot r O Ls
T ax e s
he O s
ee
fxeee
xe
TA
AAPTA
A
fee
TaPeEe
fee
ee
he aTxAe
xe
PE
PE
h e PE
icit
icit
TA
TO TA
PE
C APE
PE
PE
PE
r O PE
tTrifce
Grid fe
x
OT
ic
Ele ric
idAP
Ta
G r c tri
f
iTda
Ta
Ta
f
f
TO
TO
rO
rO
O t TO
TTO
c tr
CA
CA
CA
rO
ridO
id
T
t
id
CC
c
Gr
Gr
O t er
Ele
hGer
Gr
Gr
he
he
EG
he
h
Ot
Ot
Ot
Ot
Ot
Source: ENTSO-e transparency portal for wholesale electricity prices and EUROSTAT for electricity network costs, fees and taxes for 20,000 – 69,999 MWh
17
energy consumption band.

Figure 19 Levelized cost of hydrogen EUR/kg

Grid-connected electrolysis hydrogen production costs in the EU in 2020 (in EUR/kg)
SK
FI
SI
SE
FR
IT
NL
IE
NO
AT
PT
EL
PL
EE
RO
UK
LU
MT
CZ
LV
ES
CY
LT
HR
DE
HU
BE
DK
BG
CAPEX and Maintenance Wholsale electricity costs Taxes Grid fees
Figure 20 Comparison of hydrogen production costs (in EUR/kg) with grid-connected electrolysis in Poland, depending on the
number of operating hours.
1,000 h 4,000 h 8,000 h
1,000 h 4,000 h 8,000 h
1.2 6.72
1.26
1.28
0.33 4,8 1.29 0.21 4.82
0.74
1.34 0.76
0.76
1.88 2.29
2.18
0.54 0.27
L
L
X
X
y
y
s
X
X
s
s
L
X
X
s
fee
ee
xe
xe
icit
icit
TA
TA
ee
xe
icit
TA
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
Ta
Ta
f
Ta
f
TO
TO
c tr
c tr
CA
CA
rO
rO
TO
c tr
CA
rO
id
id
id
Ele
Ele
Gr
Gr
Ele
Gr
he
he
he
Ot
Ot
Ot
18
In case of Poland, it would result in average price of 26.5 EUR/MWh compared to 36.4 EUR/MWh in the 4,000 hour per year base case.
one increased the number of operating hours, the For Iceland, because the electricity grid is almost
impact of CAPEX on final hydrogen production costs 100% decarbonised, hydrogen produced from grid
would decrease. Yet, as more and more of the elec- electricity has a carbon footprint that is effectively
tricity would have to be bought in peak hours, at equal to that of renewable hydrogen (i.e., zero).
as more and more higher prices, the additional costs of electricity con-
of the electricity sumption would more than offset any gains resulting In a number of other countries, including Norway,
would have to from a higher electrolyser capacity factor. Reverse- Sweden and France, the carbon intensity of grid
be bought in ly, limiting the operational time only to a few hours electricity is low enough that even without PPA’s
peak hours, at each day could drive the average price of electricity and Certificates of Origin, the produced hydro-
higher prices, the down18. In this case, however, as lower amounts of gen’s carbon footprint would be low enough to
additional costs hydrogen would be produced, the impact of CAPEX meet all hydrogen emission benchmarks set on
of electricity on the final cost would increase – again offsetting the EU level, including the one set in EU taxonomy
consumption any gains from lower electricity prices. This relation- on sustainable finance20 and the RED II for renew-
would more ship is depicted in the figure below (on the example able transport fuels of non-biological origin (RFN-
than offset any of Poland). BO) – which has been set at least 70% GHG savings
gains resulting compared to fossil fuel benchmark (equivalent to
from a higher 2.2.2 CARBON INTENSITY 3.384 kg CO2 per kg of H2).
electrolyser
capacity factor. As previously mentioned, if a grid-connected elec- In all those countries, with the addition of Lithua-
trolyser would be dispatched by the TSO/DSO and nia and Luxembourg, the carbon intensity of hydro-
would use electricity that would otherwise be cur- gen from grid electricity would be lower than the
tailed, it would make sense for the carbon intensity CERTIFHy threshold for low-carbon hydrogen, set
of the produced hydrogen to be counted as zero. at 36.4 gCO2/MJ (4.4 kgCO2 per kg H2). In other
Another way of ensuring a renewable character of words, the carbon footprint of that hydrogen would
hydrogen produced with grid-connected electrolysis be lower than the standard value achievable with ex-
would be to use electricity based on a PPA with a iting SMR installations with CCS retrofit.21
renewable energy source together with GOs.
If none of those conditions is met, the carbon in-

tensity of hydrogen would depend on the carbon Norway, Sweden and France, the
intensity of the grid it is connected to. Assuming carbon intensity of grid electricity
average grid electricity carbon intensities of Eu-
ropean countries, as estimated by the European is low enough that even without
Environment Agency (EEA) for 201919, the carbon PPA’s and Certificates of Origin,
footprint of hydrogen ranges from 0 kgCO2/kgH2 in the produced hydrogen’s carbon
Iceland to 37.6 kgCO2/kgH2 in Poland. Production
of hydrogen using the EU-27 average electricity footprint would be low enough
mix in 2020 would have resulted in emissions of to meet all hydrogen emission
12.8 kgCO2/kgH2 (last year’s edition showed that, benchmarks set on the EU level
in 2019, this figure was 14.8 kgCO2/kgH2).
19
Because of lack of data from EEA, in case of Norway the carbon intensity of grid electricity is based on:
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/docs/2019_06_emissions_factors_sources_for_2019_electricity.pdf
20
3.0 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of hydrogen
21
With a retrofit CCS capture rate of around 60%. For more information see https://www.certifhy.eu/.
In all those countries, with the addition of Austria,

Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Latvia, Finland, and
Slovakia, the carbon intensity of hydrogen from grid
electricity would be lower than the average “grey”
hydrogen emission intensity (around 9.0 kgCO2 per
kgH2).
In all the remaining countries, hydrogen production

from grid electricity, including the average EU-27
energy mix, would be more carbon-intensive than
hydrogen from Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)
without CCS.
Figure 21 Carbon intensity of hydrogen produced from grid electricity, compared to selected benchmarks
40
35
30
25
kgCO2/kgH2
20
15
10
0
Belgiu m
Hungary
Iceland
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Latvia
Eston ia
Portugal
France
Slovenia
Sweden
Denmark
Malta
Slovakia
Finland
Cyprus
Ireland
Romania
Austria
Italy
Bulgaria
Greece
Lithuania
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Croatia
Germany
Norway
H2 from grid electricity carbon footprint SMR Hydrogen CertifyHy treshold
RED II EU Taxonomy
Source: Hydrogen Europe, based on EEA data.
Note:
SMR Hydrogen: 9.0 kg CO2 / kg H2 (75.0 gCO2/ MJLHV),
EU Taxonomy threshold for sustainable hydrogen manufacturing: 3 kg CO2 / kg H2 (25 gCO2/ MJLHV),
CertifHy threshold for low carbon hydrogen: 4.4 kg CO2 / kg H2 (36.4 gCO2/ MJLHV),
RED II threshold for RFNBO: 3.384 kg CO2 / kg H2 (28.2 gCO2/MJLHV).
2.3 DIRECT CONNECTION TO

A RENEWABLE ENERGY
SOURCE
Production of hydrogen via electrolysis with a direct Considering the average solar irradiation and wind
the ever- connection to a renewable energy source avoids a conditions in the EU Member States and Norway
decreasing costs number the electricity cost items like network costs and the UK, estimated renewable hydrogen produc-
of renewable and taxes. On the other hand, the electrolyser cation costs vary from 3.8 EUR/kg (from solar PV in Por-
electricity make pacity factor is limited by the capacity factor of the tugal) to 7.1 EUR/kg (from solar PV in Luxembourg).
it possible renewable source it is connected to. Especially in In southern European countries, the cheapest path-
to produce the case of solar PV in Central and Northern Europe, way of renewable hydrogen production is solar PV.
renewable this may potentially translate into a very low-capacity In contrast, for northern European countries, in most
hydrogen at factor of just around 1,000 full-load equivalent hours cases, the cheapest option is onshore wind except
prices that are per year. Yet, even with potentially lower capacity for Belgium and Germany, Denmark, Finland, Latvia
not far off from factors, compared to grid-powered electrolysis, the and Lithuania, where, on average, offshore wind is
being competitive ever-decreasing costs of renewable electricity make the cheapest option.
in most EU it possible to produce renewable hydrogen at prices
countries. that are not far off from being competitive in most
EU countries.22
Figure 22 Average renewable hydrogen production costs in the EU (with UK and Norway) in 2020 (in EUR/kg), using the
lowest-cost RES technology for a given country
5.0
PV (Sum) 5.1
4.9
3.82 7.05 4.6
5.0
Onshore Wind (Sum)
4.11 5.15 4.9 5.0
Offshore Wind 4.1

4.95 5,25
4.4
5.1
4.7
5.3
4.9
5.0
7.1 6.8
4.3 5.7
5.1 5.7
6.2 6.3
5.7
5.6
3.8 4.4
4.7
Source: Hydrogen Europe 4.7
4.4
22
For detailed techno-economic assumptions used for production costs estimations see the Methodological Note.
However, it should be stressed that the costs have ing the best irradiation or wind conditions available
been calculated based on average wind and solar in a given country.24
conditions for each country23. Especially for large
countries like Germany, Spain or France, this can Based on this analysis, it can be noted that the re-
be misleading as there are areas with significantly newable hydrogen production costs in the EU can
better than average wind or solar conditions, where be as low as 3.0 EUR/kg (PV in the South of Eu-
renewable hydrogen production with direct connec- rope) and as low as 2.5 EUR/kg in countries with
tion to the RES source would also be significantly good wind conditions (mostly Northern Europe).
less expensive than on average. This has been illus- The estimated levels of renewable hydrogen pro-
trated on the following two graphs, in which the low- duction costs are in most countries still 2-3 times
er end of the cost range has been estimated assum- higher than the current benchmark, set by fossil hy-
Figure 23 Levelized costs of renewable hydrogen production in EU countries (with UK and Norway) in 2020, using solar
PV or wind power
Levelized cost of hydrogen (EUR/kg) from utility scale PV

18
15.6
16
14
11.7
12
10.6
10 9.1
8.6 8.6 8.5 8.9
8.1 7.8
7.5 7.2 7.1 7.1
8 6.8 6.8
6.2 6.3 6.2 6.3
5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7
6 4.7 4.7
4.6 4.7 6.5
6.0 6.1 6.1 6.2
3.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9
4 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.4
4.3 4.3 4.4 4.6
2 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7
SMR hydrogen (without CCS) cost range
0
ES
PT
MT
EL
IT
FR
HR
BG
RO
HU
SI
AT
DE
FI
NL
BE
SE
PL
CZ
LU
NO
LT
EE
IE
SK
DK
UK
LV
CY
Levelized cost of hydrogen (EUR/kg) from onshore and offshore wind

12
9.1
10 7.1
8.1 8.9
4.7 8.5
8 6.3 11.7 10.6
6.8 8.6 7.1 15.6
4.7 8.6
6.3
6 4.6
5.7 5.6 5.7 6.2 7.5
6.2 6.8 7.2 7.8
4.7
3.8 5.7
5.2 5.3
4
4.4 4.4 4.5
4.0 4.1 4.2
3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8
3.1 3.2 3.3
2.8 2.9 3.0
2 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8
SMR hydrogen (without CCS) cost range
0
NO
IE
EL
SE
NL
FI
FR
DE
AT
BE
ES
PL
IT
LT
EE
HR
MT
CZ
HU
PT
BG
RO
SI
LU
UK
DK
LV
SK
CY
Note: the costs range for each technology is defined by the best wind/irradiation conditions (lower end of the cost range)
in a given country and the average conditions available in this country (upper end of the range).
23
It also does not include other potentially cheap renewable energy sources like hydro power in Austria, Slovenia or Scandinavia.
For solar PV the best available conditions were estimated of a maximum capacity factor for a NUTS-2 region in country based on their global tracking with 0.85
24
performance dataset, while for wind the best available conditions were assumed based on the maximum wind capacity factor available for any NUTS-2 region.
Both values were adopted based on the JRC ENSPRESSO database.
drogen produced via steam reforming without CCS, Similar positive effects can be achieved by down-
which, depending on natural gas prices, can be as scaling the electrolyser compared to the RES it
low as 1.2 – 2.0 EUR/kg. is connected to. Employing this strategy would re-
quire that the excess renewable electricity that could
Based on this analysis, it can be noted that the re- not be used for hydrogen production would have
newable hydrogen production costs in the EU can to be supplied to the grid (or consumed in another
be as low as 3.0 EUR/kg (PV in the South of Europe) way), but the electrolyser capacity factor could be
and as low as 2.5 EUR/kg in countries with good increased to more than 4,000 h p.a. full load equiv-
wind conditions (mostly Northern Europe). alent for solar PV and even more than 8,000 h for
onshore wind.
The estimated levels of renewable hydrogen pro-
duction costs are in most countries still 2-3 times Figure 24 illustrates, using the example of France,
higher than the current benchmark, set by fossil hy- the relationship between the electrolyser capacity
drogen produced via steam reforming without CCS, factor and the power of electrolyser relative to the
which, depending on natural gas prices, can be as renewable energy source it is connected to7.0 (assum-
Levelized costs of hydrogen in EUR/kg

low Onshore
as 1.2 – 2.0
windEUR/kg. ing the electrolyser is prioritised oversupplying ener-
6.0
Solar PV gy to the grid). As can be seen on the graph, when
Further cost optimisation can be done by com- the electrolyser power is equal to RES (ratio 5.0 of 1),
bining complementary renewable energy sources the electrolyser’s capacity factor is equal to that of
4.0
like PV and wind, which enables to increase the ca- the RES, which in the case of France is around 1,150 h
pacity factor of the electrolyser and thus reducing full load equivalent for solar PV and 2,000 3.0
h for on-
the impact of CAPEX Grey
on the total levelized
hydrogen cost of
production costs shore
range wind (on average for the country). Reducing
2.0
hydrogen.
1.0
Figure 24 Relationship of capacity factor and power of electrolyser relative to RES, example: France 0.0
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Electrolyser power to RES power ratio
1.00
Onshore wind 0.861
0.90
Electolyser capacity factor

Solar PV
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.427 0.50
0.40
0.437
0.229 0.30
0.20
0.249
0.10
0.128
0.00
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

the electrolyser power to half of that of the RES (ratio This optimisation strategy would also have additional
of 0.5), the capacity factor increases to around 2,200 h benefits from the point of view of the RES investor and
for solar PV and 3,700 for onshore wind. In the extreme the electric grid operator. Reducing the amount of ener-
case, where the electrolyser power would only be 10% gy supplied to the grid decreases the stress on the elec-
of that of the RES (ratio of 0.1), the capacity for the so- tricity grid. It makes it possible to construct larger RES
lar PV case would increase to 3,800 hours and around than the local grid connection capacity would normal-
7,500h for onshore wind. ly allow for. Additionally, being connected to the grid
and having an onsite electrolyser would enable the RES
Taking advantage of this optimisation strategy could operator to provide valuable grid balancing services to
drive the costs of renewable hydrogen low enough to the grid operator in the form of demand-side response
be cost-competitive with grey hydrogen. Keeping with or uptake of excess renewable electricity from other
the example of France, as can be seen on the figure sources. It would also allow the RES plant to optimise
below, with an electrolyser-to-res power ratio of 0.15 or revenues by prioritising the dispatching of electricity to
below for solar PV or 0.20 or below for onshore wind, the grid when prices are high and prioritising hydrogen
renewable hydrogen production costs would fall below production when electricity prices are low.
2.0 EUR/kg – so within a range of being able to compete
with hydrogen produced from fossil fuels without CCS/
CCU.24
Figure 25 Relationship of the LCOH and power of electrolyser relative to RES, example: France
7.0
Levelized costs of hydrogen in EUR/kg

Onshore wind
6.0
Solar PV
5.0
4.0
3.0
Grey hydrogen production costs range
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1.00
Onshore wind 0.861
Source: Hydrogen Europe 0.90
capacity factor
Solar PV
0.80
24
Please note this is true for average solar irradiation in France. Situation in southern France would be by far more favourable for solar PV for example.
0.70
0.60
2.4 RENEWABLE HYDROGEN

PRODUCTION COSTS
DEVELOPMENTS
While renewable hydrogen production costs are still gal and Spain) fell by a similar fraction from around
higher than for hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, 12 EUR/kg in 2012 to 3.1 EUR/kg in 2020. Based
2020 saw a continuation of the downwards trend of on recent RES auction results in some EU coun-
renewable hydrogen production costs. tries, one should reasonably expect the downwards
trend to continue in the coming years. Looking at
The fall in production costs applies for key RES tech- the example of Spain, the RES auction organised
nologies – i.e., solar PV as well as onshore and off- in 2020 allowed the Spanish Government to suc-
shore wind. In all cases, the reasons for the produc- cessfully contract over 2 GW of additional solar PV
tion costs reduction are similar - the continuous fall capacity, with prices ranging from 14.89 EUR/MWh
of renewable energy costs coupled with a reduction to 28.90 EUR/MWh. Using the lower of those values
of electrolyser CAPEX, supported by rising electrol- would allow producing renewable hydrogen at around
yser efficiency. 2.3 EUR/kg (at current electrolyser CAPEX levels).
Similarly, low levels of solar PV electricity auction
In 2012 production of renewable hydrogen prices were recently obtained in Portugal as well. In
from solar PV in the EU was on average close to Northern and Central European countries, renewable
27 EUR/kg. In 2020 the median for EU countries hydrogen produced from solar PV will remain rela-
was around 6.8 EUR/kg, which means over 75% cost tively high in the immediate future, with the recent
reduction during this period. The production costs RES auction in Poland indicating a possible produc-
in the most favourable locations in the EU (Portu- tion cost level in the next couple of years of around
5 EUR/kg.
Figure 26 Renewable hydrogen production costs (in EUR/kg) via water electrolysis with solar PV over the 2012-2020 period
and expected developments in selected countries based on recent RES auction results
30
EU range
25 PL - History
PL - forecast based on recent RES Auction
20 ES - History
ES - forecast based on recent RES Auction

15
10
5 5.2
2.3
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Hydrogen produced from onshore wind saw a simi- values would allow producing renewable hydrogen
lar fall in production costs over since 2012. The me- at around 2.4 EUR/kg (at current electrolyser CAPEX
dian of “green” hydrogen production costs from on- levels). Similar, price levels are being also achieved
shore wind in EU countries fell by almost 65% in this in other EU countries. For example, the recent RES
period – from around 15 EUR/kg in 2012 to around auction in Poland returned a winning bid price for
5.5 EUR/kg in 2020. At the same time, the produc- onshore wind of 179 PLN/MWh (~40 EUR/MWh),
tion costs in areas with the most favourable wind which would enable “green” hydrogen production
conditions in Europe fell from around 7 EUR/kg in costs of around 3.1 EUR/kg.
2012 to 2.6 EUR/kg in 2020.
In the case of offshore wind, the median of re-
As is the case with solar PV, recent RES auction in newable hydrogen production costs in Europe fell
some EU countries suggests the continuation of from around 10 EUR/kg in 2012 by almost 50% to
the downwards trend of renewable hydrogen pro- around 5.2 EUR/kg in 2020. At the same time, the
duction costs from onshore wind. The RES auction production costs in areas with the most favourable
organised by the Spanish Government at the end offshore wind conditions in Europe fell from around
of 2020 allowed to successfully contract almost 8.1 EUR/kg in 2012 to 4.3 EUR/kg in 2020.
1 GW of additional onshore wind capacity, with pric-
es ranging from 20.0 EUR/MWh to 28.89 EUR/MWh
with a delivery date in 2024. Using the lower of those
Figure 27 Renewable hydrogen production costs (in EUR/kg) via water electrolysis with the onshore wind over the 2012-2020
period and expected developments in selected countries based on recent RES auction results
18
16
EU range
14 PL - History
PL - forecast based on recent RES Auction
12
ES - History
10 ES - forecast based on recent RES Auction

8
4
3.1
2 2.4
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Note: the upper boundary of the EU range is defined as the median for all EU countries (+ UK and NO) and the lower boundary as
the production costs in assuming the most favourable solar irradiation conditions available in the EU.
The most recent auction organised by the UK Gov-

ernment has cleared at the record low price of
39.65 GBP/MWh for delivery in 2023/24 and
41.611 GBP/MWh in 2024/25 (2012 prices). In 2020
prices, this would enable “green” hydrogen produc-
tion costs of around 3.6 EUR/kg by 2024.
Figure 28 Renewable hydrogen production costs (in EUR/kg) via water electrolysis with the offshore wind over the 2012-2020
period and expected developments in selected countries based on recent RES auction results
EU range
12 UK - History
UK - forecast based on recent RES Auction
10
4
3.6
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Note: the upper boundary of the EU range is defined as the median for all EU countries (+ UK and NO) and the lower boundary
as the production costs in assuming the most favourable solar irradiation conditions available in the EU.
2.3 SUMMARY
Lowering renewable hydrogen production costs is able hydrogen should, ideally, be available in all
essential if hydrogen delivers on its role as an enabler EU countries and not only in limited regions with
in the ongoing EU-wide decarbonisation effort. It is highly favourable RES generation potential. As
especially crucial in areas with a limited regulatory the analysis has shown, the average (and not best
push, and renewable hydrogen has to compete with available) renewable hydrogen production costs in
its fossil-fuel equivalent or directly with fossil fuels Europe remain relatively high, with a median for all
(e.g., replacing natural gas for heating). EU countries at 5.1 EUR/kg. While this represents a
decrease of around 0.3 EUR/kg compared to last
Low natural gas prices in 2020 made that extreme- year, further cost reductions are needed.
ly challenging driving marginal costs of SMR based
hydrogen down to around 1.1 EUR/kg. Such a low The production cost reduction will be assisted by
production price level is still unachievable for renew- the expected further decrease of renewable energy
able hydrogen production based in Europe. costs and the increased R&D effort envisaged un-
Yet, for other applications, like those in the trans- der the Horizon Europe framework, focused on in-
portation sector, or whenever there is a clear reg- creasing energy efficiency and cost reductions along
ulatory push to phase out the use of fossil fuels, the the whole value chain. The key element, however,
break-even cost is more favourable, with fuel cell required to unlock low renewable hydrogen produc-
(FC) cars cost parity with diesel projected at com- tion costs is scaling up electrolyser manufacturing
mercial FCEV production volumes and a hydrogen and hydrogen production projects. Here, we see a
cost of up to €5/kg. Considering distribution and crucial role to be played by the European Clean Hy-
refuelling infrastructure costs, the break-even cost drogen Alliance, hydrogen IPCEI’s, EIB, and funds
translates into hydrogen production costs of like the ETS Innovation Fund.
around €3-3.5/kg.
One should also not forget about alternative ways
As this report has shown, the price levels present- of renewable and low carbon hydrogen production
ed in this chapter are at the limit of what was methods, which this report doesn’t cover but which
possible in 2020. There are countries and regions in also offer significant opportunities for cheap, clean
Europe where producing renewable hydrogen at the hydrogen production, including not only alternative
necessary cost level is, theoretically, possible. Most renewable energy sources like hydro-energy, but
notably, in southern Europe with cheap solar PV en- also emerging technologies like direct solar-to-hy-
ergy, the estimated lowest possible production costs drogen photoelectrochemical cells, as well as the
in the best locations are around 3.1 EUR/kg. In the thermal conversion of biomass or waste into hydro-
case of countries in northern Europe, where the on- gen, pyrolysis and nuclear energy.
shore wind is in most cases the cheapest technolo-
gy for renewable energy generation, in regions with
favourable wind conditions, the cost of producing In the transportation
renewable hydrogen can be as low as 2.5 EUR/kg. sector the break-even
Costs could be brought down further with the use of
a combination of wind and solar or with other opti- cost translates into
misation strategies aimed at increasing the electrol- hydrogen production
yser capacity factor, as described in this chapter. costs of around
Yet, for hydrogen to become a cornerstone of the
decarbonised European economy, cheap renew- €3-3.5/kg.
If hydrogen is to realise its

potential to be an energy vector in
a decarbonised economy it needs
to be produced on a mass scale
in a sustainable way. But in order
for that to happen, clean hydrogen
needs to become cost-competitive
with conventional fuels.
PLANNED
HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION AND
I N F R AS T R U C T U R E
As discussed in chapter 1, hydrogen produced
via water electrolysis (also known as Power-to-
Hydrogen or PtH) has the potential to be generated
with very low or zero emissions, depending on the
carbon intensity of the electricity used.
If renewable electricity is used or procured, it also The following chapter presents an aggregation of
gains renewable character (becoming what is known planned:
as renewable hydrogen). At the same time, as dis- ∙ power-to-hydrogen (PtH) projects across Eu-
cussed in Chapter 1, electricity-based hydrogen rope,
production constitutes a very small share of overall ∙ selection of reforming projects with carbon
hydrogen production at this moment. capture,
∙ the most significant hydrogen transmission
Therefore, it is important to track the develop- initiatives,
ment of hydrogen production and infrastructure ∙ most important industrial development initia-
projects to assess the progress of the hydrogen tives such as European Clean Hydrogen Alli-
sector as an enabler of a zero-emission energy ance and the Hydrogen IPCEI process
system.
The purpose of the chapter is to provide infor-
mation on planned hydrogen production and
infrastructure assets and to track hydrogen de-
velopments for comparison with national and
European targets, strategies, and roadmaps.
Hydrogen Europe has collected the data and

information in this chapter from both public
and restricted sources. While the intention is
to provide an accurate snapshot of planned
developments, this overview likely does not
reflect all projects currently planned (e.g., some
may not have been made public at all). As
the projects that have been used to generate
the overview are still evolving, the presented
numbers will continue to change.
For more details on the methodology, please
consult the Methodological Annexe.
3.1 PLANNED POWER-TO-

HYDROGEN PROJECTS
The total planned capacity of PtH projects25 The period leading up to 2030 is a very important
The total in Europe26 is 152,511 MW of electrolyser in- medium-term objective due to both European Hy-
planned capacity stalled power by 2040 (429 projects) with an extra drogen Strategy (EHS) and 2030 climate targets. For
of PtH projects25 3,459 MW (53 projects) with an unspecified start 2021 – 2030, the average tracked capacity growth
in Europe26 is date. There are 420 PtH projects with an announced rate is 103% annually. This is an impressive annual
152,511 MW start date amounting to 118,331 MW by 2030. In increase, which, if achieved, would result in 118 GW
of electrolyser the medium term, 179 planned projects are amount- of installed water electrolysis capacity by 2030 and
installed power ing to 6,606 MW by 2024. Figure 29 presents cu- reach the 40 GW objective set by the European
by 2040 (429 mulative planned PtH projects by year up to 2040. Hydrogen Strategy already in 2027.
projects) with an Based on available information, 66 MW of additional
extra PtH capacity is planned to come !"#"$%&'()*+$%,,)-*
online by the end .&/ +012)3&4*56*6)%0*%,-*+012)3&*4&%7)*8989* : 89;9*',*<=*
3,459 MW (53 of 2021, 319 MW by 2022, et cetera.
projects) with an
unspecified start
date.
Figure 29 Cumulative planned PtH projects by year 2021 - 2040 in MW and # of projects
180, 000 450
160, 000 152,511 400
140, 000 350
120, 000 118,331 300

Capacity (MW)
Capacity (MW)
# of projects
# of projects
100, 000 97,898 250
80, 000 76,548 200
60, 000 55,440 150
40, 000 100

31,799
27,334
20 ,000 50
6,606
66 319 2,000
0 0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2040
Construction Preparatory stage Feasibility study Concept # of projects

Construction Prepatory stage Feasibility study Concept # of projects
25
The term “project” refers to an individual project or a project phase. One project can have multiple phases that gradually enlarge its capacity. For the purposes
of this report, each phase of a project with three phases of 10 MW, 100 MW, and 300 MW in the same location and with the same project partners is counted as
separate project.
26
Europe refers to EU, EFTA, and UK
Compared with 9,101 MW by 2030 and 101 projects

published in the Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2020, the
data collected for this report represent a 1200%
increase in planned capacity and 316% in terms of
planned projects by 2030. The impressive increase
reflects the commitment from the governments and
the industry to decarbonise industry, transport, and
heating using power-to-hydrogen technology. Fig-
ure 30 illustrates this development.
Figure 30 Comparison of planned PtH project capacity announcements
120,000 118,331
100,000 97,898
Capacity (MW)
80,000 76,548
Capacity (MW)
60,000 55,440
40,000
31,799
27,334
20,000
9,101
2,000 6,606 5,161 5,161
1,879 2,131 2,565 2,813 3,061
638 319
0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2020 report 2021 report

In the short term, by 2024, the situation has also not visualised, 135 MW are under construction,
significantly improved from last year, with total 140 MW are in the preparatory stage, and 44 MW
planned capacity by 2024 increasing from 2,131 are undergoing feasibility studies. As expected,
to 6,606 MW. As of the writing of this report, the current status of projects planning to be online
should all planned projects by 2024 be realised, by 2024 differs from the 2022 composition as the
EHS’s 6 GW objective would be reached by 2024. pipeline is less concrete further in the future. Out of
While project announcements continue, the focus the 6,606 MW planned to be operational by then,
will be on the realisation and execution of the an- 135 MW are under construction, 2,345 MW are in a
nouncements in the next years. Figure 31 demon- preparatory stage, 1,809 MW are undergoing a fea-
strates the short-term development of projects. Out sibility study, and 2,316 MW are still only a concept.
of the 319 MW planned to come online by 2022,
excluding the 135 MW already in operation and If all these projects were realised by
2024, there would be 6,741 MW of
operational PtH capacity.
&'()"*+,-+-(.%+./0+$%&'()"+*".1(+2324+
52326+7/+89+./0+:+&;+$%&'()"*
Figure 31 PtH projects by year and project stage 2021 - 2024 in MW and # of projects
8,000 200
70
4,606 180
7,000 6,606
61 60 160
6,000
50 140
Capacity (MW)
5,000
# of projects
Capacity (MW)
120
# of projects
# of projects
40
4,000 100
30
80
3,000
20 2,000 60
2,000
10 40
1,000
20
0 319
2024 66
0 0
pt # of projects 2021 2022 2023 2024


The gap between EHS 6 GW target by 2024 and Annual capacity additions
cumulative planned PtH capacity has disappeared
compared to last year’s expectations due to per- The average annual addition between 2021 and
sistent support for the development of clean hydro- 2030 is 11,833 MW of PtH capacity, with additions
gen from European, national, regional levels as well of over 20,000 MW in 2025, 2027, 2028, 2029, and
from producers, consumers, infrastructure opera- 2030. The 118,331 MW with announced dates be-
tors, and other participants in the hydrogen ecosys- tween 2021 and 2030 are split between 420 projects
tem. Continuing clarification on the regulatory treat- at an average project size of 282 MW.
ment of hydrogen on both European and national
levels, the interest and support in the IPCEI process, Figure 32 provides an annual addition perspective
the popularity of the European Clean Hydrogen Al- for 2021 – 2024. The average annual addition is
liance, and the emergence of new funding instru- 1,651 MW of PtH capacity, with the largest expect-
ments have and will continue to contribute to ad- ed additions coming in 2023 and 2024. While the
ditional project announcements and deployments. expected average project size in 2022 is 5.4 MW,
The emphasis will have to be on the realisation of !"# average
the expected $%&'()"*+,-+-(.%+./0+$%&'()"+*".1(+232
project size two years later in 5
those announcements. 2024 is 76 MW. Should these projects be realised,
this would result in the average project size increas-
ing 14 times within two years.
Figure 32 Planned PtH projects added by year 2021 - 2024 in MW and number of projects
8,000
5,000 70
4,606 7,000
4,500
61 60
4,000 6,000
47 46 50
3,500
Capacity (MW)
5,000
# of projects
Capacity (MW)
Capacity (MW)
# of projects
3,000
40
2,500 4,000
25 30
2,000 1,681
3,000
1,500 20
1,000 2,000
10
500 253
66 1,000
0 0
2021 2022 2023 2024 0

Figure 33 provides an annual addition perspec- size in 2027 of 1,390 MW. This trend is even more
tive for 2025 – 2030. The average annual addition obvious in 2029 when five new projects are plan-
is 18,621 MW of PtH capacity, with the largest ex- ning to add 21,350 MW of PtH capacity. The results
pected additions planned for 2027 and 2029. The suggest that project developers will be increasing
111,726 MW are split between 241 projects with an their project ambitions to build multi-GW projects in
impressive 464 MW per project. The average proj- the second half of the decade. Many of the projects
ect sizes differ significantly between the different being built at this time are expansions of existing in-
years. In 2025, the 20,729 MW is split between 75 stallations. Based on the data, 104 projects are sup-
projects averaging 276 MW per project. In 2027, the posed to come online in 2030. This is due to a large
23,641 MW of new additions result from only sev- number of indicative dates when some projects in
enteen new projects resulting in an average project earlier stages of development have only indicated
2030 instead of a more specific operation date.
!"# $%&'()"*+,--(-+./+/(,%+0101+20131+45+67+,5-+589.(%
Figure 33 PtH projects added by the year 2025 - 2030 in MW and number of projects
25,000 23,641 120
104
21,108 21,350
20,729 20,434
100
20,000
Capacity (MW)
75 80
# of projects
15,000
Capacity (MW)
# of projects
60
10,000
40
27
5,000 4,465 17
13 20
5
0 0
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030


COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE The plans for future PtH projects differ country
The country with the highest planned PtH capaci- by country, especially when it comes to the size
ty by 2030 is Spain with 73,36327 MW followed and number of projects. The largest planned PtH
by the Netherlands with 10,960 MW, Greece with addition by 2030 is planned in Spain, where its
5,428 MW, Germany with 5,371 MW, Denmark with 73,363 MW split between 51 projects results in an
4,922 MW, France with 3,114 MW, and Portugal with average project size of 1,112 MW. This is markedly
2,657 MW. Together, these seven countries would different from Germany, where its 5,371 MW split
represent 89% of planned PtH capacity in Europe between 58 projects results in an average project
and 59% of planned projects. size of 93 MW. Italy is another country with numer-
ous smaller projects, where this report identified
28 PtH projects amounting to 1,579 MW of capacity
with an average project size of 56 MW.
Map of PtH capacity additions by country 2020 - 2030 in M
Figure 34 Map of PtH capacity additions by country 2021 - 2030 in MW
Above 10,000 MW
3,000 – 10,000 MW
1,000 – 3,000 MW
200 – 1,000 MW
Up to 200 MW
1,834 MW
Existing project/s with undisclosed capacity
No known projects 1,445 MW

2,087 MW 33
Not included in the analysis
4,922 MW
50 MW
10,960 MW
408 MW 1,485 MW
5,371 MW
1,445 MW 45 MW
299 MW
3,114 MW 21 MW
20 MW 424 MW 1,105 MW
1,579 MW
2,657 MW 218 MW
73,363 MW 5,428 MW
20 MW

Notes: Displayed electrolyser capacities reflect projects that have an official starting date by 2030. There are numerous other projects with unknown starting dates that could be finished by 2030, but are not in
5 this analysis.
27
Spain remains the outlier in our project tracking due to a single project that plans to deploy 69 GW of electrolysis by 2030 alone
Spain’s more than 73 GW are primarily due to a sin- Germany’s current project pipeline of 5,371 MW by
gle large project aiming to deploy 69 GW of elec- 2030 sets Germany at 107% of its 5 GW 2030 tar-
trolysis by 2030. In addition, there are also several get. As of the writing of this report, Denmark has
100+ MW projects focused on industrial clusters. the fifth-highest planned PtH pipeline by 2030, with
The second-largest project pipeline by 2030 is in the 4,922 MW to be deployed split between 16 projects.
Netherlands with 10 GW of electrolysis compared
to the objective in its hydrogen strategy of 3-4 GW
by 2030. The planned Greek PtH capacity is largely
based on a single integrated project aimed at decar-
bonising specific regions.
Figure 35 PtH capacity additions and # of projects by country by 2030
80,000 73,363 70
66 58
70,000 60
60,000 48
50
Capacity (MW)
# of projects
50,000
Capacity (MW)
# of projects
40
40,000
28
26 30
30,000
20 19
18 18
16 20
20,000 13 13
11
10,960
10,000 10
5,428 5,371 4,922 1,105
3,114 2,657 2,087 1,834 1,579 1,485 1,445 1,445 2
0 0
ES NL EL DE DK FR PT SE FI IT PL NO BE RO

ELECTROLYSER TECHNOLOGY projects and 9,696 MW out of 118,331 MW of elec-

trolyser capacity. 75% of the capacity and 35% of
58 out of 179 planned projects by 2024 and those projects plan to use alkaline electrolysis at an
1,382 MW of capacity out of 6,606 MW have an- average project size of 235 MW. Proton exchange
nounced their electrolyser technology. 68% of the membrane electrolysis will continue to be used for
capacity and 38% of those projects plan to use alka- smaller projects as it is planned to be used in 18% of
line electrolysis at an average project size of 42 MW. capacity but 56% of projects at an average project
Proton exchange membrane electrolysis is more size of 34 MW.28 The medium to long-term trend
popular for smaller projects as it is planned to be indicates that larger projects rely mostly on alkaline
used in 22% of capacity but 52% of projects at an technology while smaller projects rely on PEM tech-
average project size of 10 MW. nology. The future market growth, deployments,
cost reductions across electrolysis technologies, and
For the longer-term outlook by 2030, electroly- future development of emerging electrolysis tech-
ser technology is known for only 89 out of the 420 nologies will shape the deployments and will likely
differ from the snapshot presented today.
!"#$%&'"()#&$'*+',-%-'./'0/1.'2./+&'3#$%/-./45/6.7/8//'0/+&'3#$%,
!"#$%&'"()#&$'*+',-%-'./'0/1.'2./+&'3#$%/-./45/6.7/8//'0/+&'3#$%,
Figure 36, 37 Electrolyser composition of planned Electrolyser composition of planned projects in MW
projects in MW and # of projects by 2024 and # of projects by 203029
100% 100% 100% 100%

145 145 6 6 715 715 8 8
90% 90% 90% 90%
1,707 1,707
80% 80% 303 303 80% 80%
70% 70% 70% 70%

30 30 50 50
60% 60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40% 40%

7,274 7,274
935 935
30% 30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 22 22 20% 20%

31 31
10% 10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0% 0%
Capacity (MW) Capacity
# (MW)
Capacity (MW)
of projects ##of
of projects
projects Capacity
Capacity (MW)
(MW) ##of
Capacity projects
(MW)
of projects # of projects
ALK PEM SO
28
Figures may not round up to 100% due to automatic rounding
29
ELECTRICITY CONNECTION renewable generation capacities, these figures point

to the importance of grid-connected electrolysis, at
One of the key considerations for every PtH project least in short to medium term.
developer is the electricity supply. That means both
whether the project has (i) a direct connection to its The situation significantly changes when looking
electricity source, (ii) a grid connection, or (iii) both to announced projects by 2030. For the planned
and what is the source of the electricity planned to 118,331 MW by 2030, 82,600 MW or 70% of the
be consumed. capacity and 137 or 33% of the projects planned in-
dicate a direct connection to their electricity source.
For the 6,606 MW currently planned by 2024, 22,867 MW or 19% of the capacity, and 103 or 25%
3,166 MW or 48% of the capacity and 40 or 22% of of the projects are planning to have both a direct
the projects is planned to have both a direct and a and a grid connection. By 2030, 12,865 MW or 11%
grid connection. 2,598 MW or 39% of the capaci- of the capacity and 180 or 43% of projects are plan-
ty, and 74 or 41% of the projects are planning only ning only to have a grid connection. While develop-
to have a grid connection. By 2024, only a direct ers plan to rely heavily on grid electricity by 2024,
connection is currently planned for 842 MW or 13% future deployments of large scale PtH installations
of the capacity and 65 or 36% of projects. Overall, plan to develop significant renewable generation
87% of the planned capacity and 64% of projects !"#$%&'$'%()*+,,"()$-..#$%'-.)'.)/0)1.2)3))-4),&-5#$%
!"#$%&'$'%()*+,,"()$-..#$%'-.)'.)/0)1.2)3))-4),&-5#$%*
capacities for their internal use. The average proj-
are planning to be connected to the electricity grid. ect size by 2030 is 603 MW for directly connected
While large scale PtH capacity increases will go projects, 222 MW for projects with both a direct and
hand in with large scale additional development of a grid connection, and 71 MW for grid-connected
projects
Figure 38, 39 Electricity supply connection in MW and # of projects Electricity supply connection in MW and # of projects
by 2024 by 2030
100% 100% 100% 100%
842 842 12,865 12,865

90% 90% 90% 90%
80% 65 6580% 80%

80% 22,867 22,867 180
180
70% 70% 70% 70%

2,598 2,598
60% 60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50% 50%

103 103
74 74
40% 40% 40% 40%
82,600 82,600
30% 30% 30% 30%
3,166 3,166
20% 20% 20% 20%
137 137
10% 10% 40 4010% 10%
0% 0% 0% 0%
Capacity
(MW) (MW)
Capacity
Capacity (MW) ##ofofprojects
# of projectsprojects Capacity
Capacity (MW)
Capacity
(MW) (MW) ##ofofprojects
# of projects
projects
Direct
Direct and and grid
grid Grid Grid
Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct
Direct and and grid
grid Grid Grid
Direct and grid Grid Direct
29
ELECTRICITY SOURCE ergy sources, including solar, a combination of solar

and wind, and hydro.
Regarding the electricity source, both capacity and
number of projects planned by 2024 are dominated The 2030 perspective is dominated by new addi-
by unspecified and other renewables. These proj- tional PtH capacity connected to solar generation
ects have indicated that they will be powered by re- capacity. The 75 GW represents 65% of the 2030
newable energy but have not specified exact gener- capacity and 19% of the projects. While these are
ation sources.30 The grid-connected projects plan to impressive numbers, it is important to point out
purchase power purchase agreements while directly that they are dominated by a single large and very
connected projects are either developing new elec- ambitious project in Spain that accounts for 69 GW
tricity generation capacity as a part of the project or of electrolyser capacity alone. The second-largest
are locating the PtH facility close to an already exist- category is Unspecified and other renewables repre-
ing renewable generation site. The unspecified and senting 21,176 MW or 18% of the capacity and 180
other renewables comprise 4,257 MW or 68% of the or 47% of all projects. This represents an average
announced capacity by 2024 and 72 or 43% of proj- size of 118 MW per project and outlines a trend that
ects. The second-largest electricity source by 2024 many of the PtH projects in lower hundreds of MW
will be wind projects with 1,018 MW or 16% share of have not secured their electricity supply or are plan-
capacity and 34 or 20% of projects. The remaining ning on signing a grid PPA. Wind has the third larg-
16% of capacity is also dominated by renewable en- est capacity with almost 14 GW or 12% of capacity
and 78 or 20% of projects.
Figure 40, 41 Electricity source for projects in MW and # of projects Electricity source for projects in MW and # of rojects
by 202431 by 2030
100% 100% 100% 100%

188 188 4,097 4,097
317 317 12 12
90% 90% 90% 90% 13,614 31
13,614 31
591 591 15 15
80% 80% 80% 80%
1,018 1,018 21,176 78
21,176 78
31 31
70% 70% 70% 70%
60% 60% 60% 60%
34 34
50% 50% 50% 50%
180 18
40% 40% 40% 40%
4,298 4,298 75,174 75,174
30% 30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 72 7220% 20%
10% 10% 10% 10% 71 71
0% 0% 0% 0%
Capacity (MW) # of projects Capacity (MW) # of projects
Unspecified and other renewables Wind Solar Solar + wind
Other Hydro
30
The category Unspecified and other renewable also includes ocean energy
31
Other includes waste, grid mix, biomass, and nuclear
3.2 REFORMING WITH CARBON

CAPTURE
As the planned PtH projects have already been pre- identified a selection of 18 projects. There are
sented above, this section of the report presents the more projects in development that have not been
projects intending to produce hydrogen via reform- included in this selection. Some of them are small
ing combined with carbon capture. demonstration projects, while others have not yet
been publicly announced. Out of these 18 identi-
Last year’s Clean Hydrogen Monitor identified a se- fied projects, seven are located in the UK, five in the
lection of 12 projects under development intending Netherlands, two in Norway, one in Italy, and one
HyNet
to produce hydrogen by reforming and capturing each in Germany, Greece and Sweden.
the associated CO2 emissions. This year’s report
Porthos
Figure 42 Selection of announced projects based on reforming with carbon capture
Preem CCS
CCS / H2
1
14 Acorn CCS / H2
South Wales Ind. Cluster HyNet
4
2 Adriatic Blue Porthos
tic Blue 15
3 14
Zeeland Refinery CCS
Aramis (Blue H2 Den Helder) Preem CCS
s (Blue H2 Den Helder) 41 16 Barents

Acorn CCSBlue
/ H2 14 South Wales Ind. Cluster
4
1415
5 Blue Med
2 Zeeland Refinery CCS
17
Adriatic Blue
ts Blue
6 H2 Magnum
3 Aramis (Blue H2 Den Helder) 16 13
Med 7
4 18 H2H Saltend
Barents Blue 17 16
1
8 H2morrow 13
agnum 5 Blue Med 18 16
10 9
1
9 H2 Teeside
6 H2 Magnum
14 712
11
altend 10 H21 North of England
3
15 10 9
11
7 H2H Saltend 17 18
6 8 17
14 712
18
3
15
rrow 11 H-Vision 6 8
8 H2morrow
12 Humber Zero
eside 9 H2 Teeside
13 HyDemo
10 H21 North of England 2
orth of England 14 HyNet 2
11 H-Vision
15 Porthos
on 12 Humber Zero 5
16 Preem CCS
er Zero 13 HyDemo
5
17 South Wales Ind. Cluster
18
mo Zeeland Refinery CCS
Selection of countries with announced projects to produce hydrogen from reform-
ing with carbon capture

The projects mentioned above vary in terms of both North of the H2H Saltend, the H2 Teeside in the Tee-
hydrogen production technology as well as carbon side industrial cluster is planned to be developed in
capture solutions. Some projects, such as H21 North two phases, reaching a full capacity of 1,000 MW
of England, include constructing a new 12.15 GW to produce hydrogen by reforming with carbon
auto-thermal reforming hydrogen generation based capture by 2030.41 Even further north in Scotland,42
on natural gas coupled with CCS.33 In others, such the Acorn CCS/H2 planned to be operational by
as the Porthos project in the Netherlands, its devel- 2025 is designed to have an initial production ca-
opment allows the involved project partners to ret- pacity of 200 MW of hydrogen to contribute to the
rofit an already existing hydrogen production with decarbonisation of Scotland. In the western UK,
CCUS 34 35. In the HyDemo project in Norway, a new the Liverpool-Manchester HyNET project will oper-
production of liquified hydrogen for maritime ap- ate between the Northwest of England and North
plications will be coupled with CO2 storage that is Wales, generating, storing, and distributing up to
being developed off the coast of Norway as part of 4,600 MW of hydrogen by 2030. The first phase of
another project called Northern Lights.36 the project is planned to be already operating by
2025.43
Some industrial areas, such as the Humber region,
include multiple projects for producing hydrogen In Germany, the companies involved in the H2mor-
with reforming and carbon capture. Humber is one row project will produce low-carbon hydrogen from
of the most carbon-intensive industrial clusters in Norwegian natural gas delivered through the gas
England, with emissions of around 14 million tonnes grid.44
of CO2 per year.37 The two active low-carbon hydro-
gen production projects include H2H Saltend and In the Netherlands, the H-Vision project aims to pro-
Humber Zero. Project’s partners in the H2H Saltend, duce low-carbon hydrogen in Rotterdam by 2026
in the Hull area, plan to launch the decarbonisation with further scale-up by 2032. The objective is to
of the entire region by building their own CCS solu- develop a low-carbon hydrogen production capacity
tion at the Saltend Chemicals Park operating with of 1,500 MW, developed in two phases of 750 MW
a 600 MW capacity during the first phase, with the each.45 The H2 Magnum project located in Eem-
CO2 preliminarily destined to be stored at the “En- shaven, planned to be operational by 2027, plans
durance” aquifer on the UK continental shelf.38 The to convert an existing gas power plant into a hy-
Humber Zero project is located just south of H2H drogen-powered plant while developing significant
Saltend. Its project partners plan to reduce their capacities of hydrogen produced by reforming with
emissions by decarbonising a refinery and a local carbon capture.46
power plant. The project will include the develop-
ment of a regional hydrogen hub with local produc-
tion of both renewable hydrogen and hydrogen pro-
duced by reforming with carbon capture. Produced
volumes will be used by the power plant and local
industry.39 40
33
https://together.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/H21-NoE-Exec-Sum-Print-Final.pdf
34
https://www.porthosco2.nl/en/
35
https://www.topsectorenergie.nl/sites/default/files/uploads/TKI%20Gas/publicaties/Overview%20Hydrogen%20projects%20in%20he%20Netherlands%20versie%201mei2020.pdf
36
https://www.uib.no/sites/w3.uib.no/files/attachments/eikaas_equinor_february_2020_uib.pdf
37
https://www.zerocarbonhumber.co.uk/
38
https://www.equinor.com/en/what-we-do/h2hsaltend.html
39
https://www.humberzero.co.uk/2021/03/17/huge-boost-for-ground-breaking-humber-zero-project/
40
https://www.humberzero.co.uk/
41
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/03/18/10619081/bp-announces-1gw-blue-hydrogen-project
42
https://theacornproject.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Hydrogen-in-Scotland-The-role-of-Acorn-Hydrogen-in-Enabling-UK-Net-Zero.pdf
43
https://hynet.co.uk/
44
https://oge.net/en/press-releases/2019/equinor-and-open-grid-europe-present-joint-h2morrow-project-to-support-deep-decarbonization-of-german-industry
45
https://www.h-vision.nl/en
46
https://www.equinor.com/en/news/evaluating-conversion-natural-gas-hydrogen.html
The Adriatic Blue project in Italy plans to utilise de-

pleted offshore gas reservoirs in Northern Italy for
storing CO2, allowing low-carbon hydrogen pro-
duction in the Ravenna industrial complex. As the
first large low-carbon hydrogen production project
in Southern Europe, it could provide the low-carbon
hydrogen supply needed to decarbonise various lo-
cal industrial sites47 by 2026.48
In Sweden, the Preem CCS pilot plans to capture
carbon from a reformer at the refinery at Lysekil. Af-
ter the testing program, the project should operate
at full scale by 2025.49
Overall, the year-on-year increase of planned re-

forming projects with carbon capture demonstrates
the existing momentum for this production technol-
ogy. The key indicator for hydrogen produced via
reforming with carbon capture will be the projects’
development progress in the subsequent years.
47
https://www.eni.com/assets/documents/investor/2020/ita/Transcript-eni-strategy-presentation-28-feb-2020.pdf
47
https://www.eni.com/assets/documents/investor/2020/eng/3q-2020/2020-third-quarter-results.pdf
48
https://www.akersolutions.com/news/news-archive/2020/aker-solutions-starts-ccs-test-program-at-preem-refinery-in-sweden/
3.3 HYDROGEN TRANSMISSION

AND DISTRIBUTION
INFRASTRUCTURE
For hydrogen to access the various end-uses across companies developed an in-depth analysis that eval-
Europe, basic infrastructure will have to be devel- uated the cost-effectiveness and proposed devel-
oped between production and consumption points, oping a pan-European hydrogen infrastructure, the
especially since many of the most economical pro- European Hydrogen Backbone. The analysis covers
duction locations will be far from large scale con- 19 EU member states in addition to the United King-
sumption. While there are already thousands of dom and Switzerland. The analysis assumes the util-
tonnes of hydrogen traded and distributed around isation of both renewable hydrogen and hydrogen
Europe today via local dedicated hydrogen pipe- produced by reforming natural gas coupled with
lines or trucks (see Chapter 1 and FCHO), the devel- carbon capture. The European Hydrogen Backbone
opment of an EU-wide hydrogen pipeline network Initiative envisages an 11,600 km hydrogen network
is required to jumpstart the hydrogen economy fur- by 2030 that would initially focus on connecting the
ther, as this is by far the cheapest mode of transport emerging hydrogen valleys and clusters. By 2040, it
for large quantities of hydrogen.49 The hydrogen envisages developing into a pan-European network
economy will require a similar transmission and dis- of 39,700 km, with 69% originating from repurposed
tribution ecosystem to the current natural gas infra- existing infrastructure and 31% new pipelines. Addi-
structure, complemented by trucks and ships. While tional network development is also expected after
blending hydrogen into the existing natural gas 2040.50
pipelines may be an important intermediary step in
the early 2020s, retrofitting existing gas infrastruc- According to the European Hydrogen Backbone
ture to carry pure hydrogen will be necessary for the initiative, most hydrogen transmission projects will
long run. This chapter provides an overview of the first develop in industrial clusters, ports, and cities
plans to develop dedicated (pure) hydrogen trans- in the north of the continent (Belgium, Netherlands,
mission and distribution networks. North-West Germany) by 2030. In addition, oth-
er network additions or repurposing is planned in
Together with the rapid development of national France (Dunkerque, the Seine Valley from Le Havre
hydrogen strategies come also transmission and dis- to Paris, Lyon, Lacq, Marseille), Spain (the Basque
tribution projects. Some of the largest infrastructure Country, Asturias, Castille and Léon, Aragon, and
initiatives include the European Hydrogen Backbone connection between Barcelona and Valencia), Italy
by a group of EU gas infrastructure companies and with both repurposed and new infrastructure from
two national initiatives in Germany and the Nether- Sicily to Milan, and in Scandinavia with mostly new
lands. These plans include both retrofitting existing pipelines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.51
natural gas pipelines and partially building an en- By 2035, the hydrogen network is expected to grow
tirely new hydrogen infrastructure to accommodate from regional networks connecting industrial clus-
growing hydrogen demand. ters to a (trans) national scale by connecting coun-
tries. These include connecting the northwest Eu-
European Hydrogen Backbone rope cluster to Scandinavian, French, and German
networks, a connection between France and Spain,
As the most comprehensive current hydrogen infra- and connecting the Italian infrastructure through
structure initiative, 23 European gas infrastructure Slovenia to Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia.
49
https://gasforclimate2050.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/European-Hydrogen-Backbone_April-2021_V3.pdf
50
51
Last year, eleven gas infrastructure companies published a vision of a European

Hydrogen Backbone (EHB), a dedicated hydrogen pipeline transport network spanning
By 2040, this vision envisages a truly ten pan-Europe-
European countries.The Thatgroup of gas infrastructure
report sparked a debate on thecompanies estimate
role that a hydrogen
an dedicated hydrogen transmissionnetwork infrastructure
can play in the CAPEX for this expansion
future European energy system. to be
The between €43-81inbn
role of hydrogen
Executive
stretching from Sicily to Northern Swedenenablingand
cia to Eastern Finland. The network transport.
would also
climate neutrality
Gali-
This report
byis 2040
be presents
widely acknowledged,
with between
an updated and
ment dedicated
as is
63%the need
extended EHB
to pipelines
to 77%for hydrogen
andvision,
of totalpipeline
between
invest-
now involving
37% and
23 gas infrastructure companies from 21 countries. It presents updated hydrogen
summary
able to accommodate significant hydrogen imports
from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia intransport
the South,network
23% to compression equipment. The estimated lev-
infrastructure maps for 2030, 2035 and 2040 with a dedicated hydrogen pipeline
Tur-largelyelized
based on cost of transporting
repurposed existing gas hydrogen
infrastructure.along an aver-
key in the Southeast, Ukraine in the East, and Nor- age stretch of the backbone
By 2030, the EHB could consist of an initial 11,600 km pipeline amounts to €0.11-0.21/kg
network,
way in the North. connecting emerging of hydrogen
hydrogen per 1,000km with €0.16/kg incan
valleys. The hydrogen infrastructure the then
“me-
grow to become a pan-European
dium” case. network,
The with
studya length of 39,700
estimates CAPEX km bycosts
2040.for
Further network development can be expected after 2040. In addition, the maps
Such developments would directly impact Europe’s repurposing a natural gas pipeline to hydrogen at
This report presents an updated show possible additional routes that could emerge, including potential offshore
decarbonisation.
and extended EHB They would
vision, now allow interconnectors
the necessary €0.4 million/km
and pipelines for athe28-37
in regions outside inchthediameter
area where EHB members pipe-
sector coupling
involving 23 gasininfrastructure
the North Sea, theare Baltic Sea,
active. Theand line in the study’s medium scenario,
proposed expanded pan-European hydrogen backbone can further which is 18%
companies from 21 countries. support
other regions that would otherwise struggle with the integration of renewable and clean energy sources
of the cost of the new pipeline at €2.2 million/km. in regions that were
integrating massive new renewable not yet included
resources. 52
Inin theThe
initialstudy
European Hydrogen
concludes Backbone
that plan as published
repurposing in
existing nat-
2020. These include Finland, Estonia, large parts of central and eastern Europe,
Central Europe, this infrastructure and associated ural gas pipelines to transport hydrogen is the most
Greece, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
supply of clean hydrogen would enable decarboni- cost-effective solution for long-distance transporta-
sation of the local heavy industry. tion.
FIGURE 1
Figure 43 European Hydrogen

Mature European Backbone
Hydrogen 2021
Backbone
can be created by 2040
H2 pipelines by conversion of existing natural gas pipelines (repurposed)

Newly constructed H2 pipelines
Export/Import H2 pipelines (repurposed)
Subsea H2 pipelines (repurposed or new)
Helsinki
Countries within scope of study Tallinn
Countries beyond scope of study Stockholm

Edinburgh Göteborg
Potential H2 storage: Salt cavern

Copenhagen
Potential H2 storage: Aquifer
Dublin
Potential H2 storage: Depleted field Manchester Gdansk
Cork
Energy island for offshore H2 production Hamburg
City, for orientation purposes Amsterdam
London Berlin
Warsaw
Cologne
Leipzig
Frankfurt Prague
Krakow
Paris
Munich Vienna
Bratislava
Budapest
Lyon
Bordeaux Milan
Ljubljana
Bilbao Venice
Marseille
Madrid
Barcelona
Rome
Valencia
Tarifa Almería Palermo

Athens
European Hydrogen Backbone initiative 2021, supported by Guidehouse
3 / EXTENDING THE EUROPEAN HYDROGEN BACKBONE

Source: European Hydrogen Backbone Initiative (supported by Guidehouse)
52
https://northseawindpowerhub.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NSWPHIntegration-routes-offshore-wind-2050.pdf
Dutch hydrogen backbone The study confirmed the importance of CO2-free

hydrogen for developing a climate-neutral economy
The Netherlands is one of the first movers in Europe and the importance of developing national hydro-
when it comes to developing a hydrogen economy. gen transport to give hydrogen a significant position
The government set to review the use of the natural in the Dutch energy system. It also sees short-term
gas grid for hydrogen transmission. The HyWay 27 demand from the industry while in the longer term,
study carried out by the Ministry of Economic Affairs it identifies mobility, buildings, and electricity sector
and Climate Policy, Gasunie, and TenneT, was pub- as additional use cases.
lished in June 2021 set out to answer the following
three questions: The report recommended that: (i). a decision is tak-
(i) Do we need a transmission network for hy- en to repurpose parts of the existing transmission
drogen, and if so, when? grid in the short term, (ii). rollout plan is created for
(ii) Can the existing natural gas grid be used for the hydrogen transmission network development
the transmission of hydrogen? (iii). regulatory requirements of the hydrogen mar-
(iii) What kind of government intervention will ket, including the hydrogen transmission network,
be needed to create a transmission network? are assessed and (iv) a plan to kickstart the supply
chain is developed.
Figure 44 Proposed Dutch national hydrogen network
Source: Gasunie
53
https://www.fchobservatory.eu/observatory/technology-and-market/hydrogen-demand
54
https://www.fnb-gas.de/media/fnb_gas_2020_nep_entwurf_de.pdf
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

received the study results positively and indicated
that it would decide to repurpose part of the exist-
ing natural gas transmission. As a result, the Ministry
of Economic Affairs and Climate has asked Gasunie
to start with the development of this national hydro-
gen network.53 Gasunie continues developing the
Dutch hydrogen backbone by repurposing existing
gas pipelines as these become available due to de-
clining demand for natural gas and considers the
construction of new hydrogen pipelines to connect
the main industrial clusters in the Netherlands to
reach 1,400 km by 2030.54
The current development timeline first envisages the

development of regional backbones by 2024-2026,
focused on the main industrial clusters accounting
for most of the Netherland’s 1.3 million tons of hy-
drogen consumed annually.55 This includes a con-
nection to Northern Germany. The connection be-
tween the individual industrial clusters, including
Zeeland, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Limburg, and the
northern Netherlands, is planned by 2026-2028. The
interconnection to the European Hydrogen Back-
bone is envisioned for 2028-2030.
53
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/06/30/staatssecretaris-yesilgoz-zegerius-zet-eerste-stap-voor-ontwikkeling-landelijk-waterstofnet
54
https://www.gasunienewenergy.nl/projecten/waterstofbackbone/hydrogen-backbone
55
https://www.fchobservatory.eu/observatory/technology-and-market/hydrogen-demand
German visionary hydrogen network The planning for Gas Network Development
map (2020-2030) 41 Plan 2022-2032 has continued to build on the
previous scenario by incorporating the newest
The initial German hydrogen infrastructure plans projects, plans, and demands from gas con-
have been first concisely articulated in 2020 in the sumers. The new version of the future German
Gas Network Development Plan 2020-2030 as re- hydrogen infrastructure will be developed
ported in Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2020. Figure 45 based on findings from the Gas Network De-
displays the network as envisaged last year. This en- velopment Plan 2022-2032, which will be artic-
visaged hydrogen network would have a total length ulated over the course of 2021 and finalised in
of around 5,900 km and would connect current and 2022.
expected hydrogen production and consumption
points in the country, including cavern storage facil-
ities, industrial clusters, and regions with green hy-
drogen production potential.56 Parts of this network
have already been included in the national preselec-
tion of projects for hydrogen IPCEI in Germany.
English translation – used

Figure 45 German initiation and visionary hydrogen networks
Hydrogen Initiation Network 2030
Potential cavern storage

Refinery
Steel industry
Chemical industry
Hydrogen Initiation Network 2030
Natural gas pipelines to be gradually retrofitted to hydrogen by 2030
New hydrogen pipelines to be built by 2030
Visionary H2 Network
Hydrogen pipelines after potential conversion of existing gas pipelines
Potential new hydrogen pipelines
Disclaimer: The map serves as a graphic representation, which does not claim
to be complete
Disclaimer: Theregarding the depicted
map serves storagerepresentation,
as a graphic capacities or end-users
which does not claim
toTranslated from German
be complete regarding the depicted storage capacities or end-users
Translated from German
gas/veroeffentlichungen/pressemitteilungen/fernleitungsnetzbetreiber-
13
Source: Netzentwicklungsplan Gas 2020–2030, FNB Gas
56
https://www.fnb-gas.de/media/fnb_gas_2020_nep_entwurf_de.pdf
3.4 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

INITIATIVES
European Clean Hydrogen Alliance and end-use, administrative and regulatory, supply
chain, and technology. Funding issues are significant
The European Clean Hydrogen Alliance is an ini- enabling conditions of the projects. As a result, a
tiative of the European Commission that brings Funding Compass has already been made available
together all the stakeholders involved in hydrogen to the members of the Alliance to identify funding
deployment to create a pipeline of investment proj- opportunities at national and EU levels.
ects by 2030 and identify their enabling conditions.
The Alliance has currently more than 1,500 members Important Projects of Common
representing the European industry, research organ- European Interest (IPCEI) – Hydrogen
isations, public authorities, and civil society. The op-
erational work of the Alliance relies on six thematic IPCEIs are an EU industry policy tool that can pro-
roundtables that reflect the activities of the entire vide state aid to integrated projects across EU bor-
hydrogen value chain. Hydrogen Europe is one of ders, making them particularly suitable for support-
the seven facilitating organisations of the Alliance. ing hydrogen deployment efforts. The industry has
It supports the coordination of the six roundtables made substantial proposals on this topic since 2019.
under the supervision of the European Commission. Member States have responded by organising nu-
The members of the Alliance have submitted more merous calls for expression of interest and signing
than 1,000 deployment projects so far across pro- the Manifesto to develop the European “H2 systems
duction, transmission, and end-use. Two-thirds of and technology” value chain at the end of 2020.
hydrogen production and consumption projects are The 22 Member States (plus Norway) that signed it
scheduled to begin operations within three years, agreed on the importance of promoting cross-bor-
underlining that the deployment phase has already der collaboration and on working on large-scale
started. 84% of the production projects plan to use joint investment projects via IPCEIs.
electrolysers, and most of those expect to be pow-
ered by renewable electricity. Several geographic
clusters for hydrogen production and consumption
are emerging and will require transmission & distri-
bution infrastructure to connect them.
The European Commission is analysing the submit-

ted projects, and the project pipeline will be pre-
sented at the end of 2021. A report will also reflect
the discussions of the roundtables on the bottle-
necks that need to be addressed in terms of market
Two IPCEI waves have been prepared by Member

states, one on Technology and another on Industry.
They bring together 128 projects selected by the
Member states. These include production, infrastruc-
ture, and end-use projects of different nature (R&D,
first industrial deployment, and energy and trans-
port projects of “great importance”). Member states
have launched an informal prenotification process
with the European Commission at the beginning of
September intending to finetune future notifications
and facilitate a smooth adoption of these projects
by the European Commission in 2022. Additional IP-
CEI waves are currently being considered and could
be launched by the end of 2021.
PLANNED
HYDROGEN
CONSUMPTION
I N I N D U S T RY
The projects presented in this chapter reflect
plans to replace fossil fuels such as coal and gas
and unabated “grey” hydrogen in the industry with
low-carbon hydrogen.57
This includes the consumption of hydrogen: Projects (or industries) that only use unabated
∙ as a feedstock in the refining industry, “grey” hydrogen59 in their process without plans to
∙ in the steel sector, replace that consumption with clean hydrogen are
∙ in ammonia and methanol production as well as not within the scope of this chapter.
∙ in the synthesis of e-fuels.58
Hydrogen Europe has collected the data and infor-
The scope of the work also includes industry proj- mation presented in this chapter from both public
ects where low-carbon hydrogen is used to replace and restricted sources. While the intention is to
natural gas or other fossil fuels in industrial burners, provide an accurate snapshot of planned develop-
resulting in emission reduction in energy-intensive ments, this overview likely does not reflect all proj-
industrial processes like the production of cement, ects currently planned (e.g., some may not have
ceramics and others. been made public at all). Furthermore, as the proj-
ects that have been used to generate the overview
Projects aimed at consuming low-carbon hydrogen are still evolving, the numbers presented are subject
for mobility or in the energy sector are not included to change.
in the analysis of this chapter.
57
The EU’s definition of “low-carbon hydrogen” includes both what is commonly known as “green” or renewable hydrogen, which is produced from
renewable energy, as well as non-renewable, low-carbon hydrogen, which includes electricity-based hydrogen (PtH) produced from low-GHG electricity as
well as what is sometimes referred to as “blue” hydrogen, (i.e. natural gas based hydrogen with carbon capture and storage (CCS) or usage (CCU)).
58
Because ammonia and methanol are already tracked as separate sectors, they are not included as e-fuels even though they can be considered one
59
This chapter uses the term clean hydrogen interchangeably with the above-mentioned definition of low-carbon hydrogen.
Clean hydrogen consumption

in industry is expected to be,
in the space of a decade, at
least 67 times the expected
amount in 2021
CONSUMPTION OF
LOW-CARBON HYDROGEN
IN INDUSTRY
The total planned consumption of low-carbon hy- Clean hydrogen consumption

drogen in the industrial projects tracked amounts
in the industry is expected
to 5.2 Mt H2/year by 203060. The hydrogen produc-
tion technology announced encompasses in terms to be, in the space of
of consumption: 84% PtH, 9% reforming with car- a decade, at least 67 times
bon capture projects and 7% both or a different/un- the expected amount in 2021.
known source of low-carbon hydrogen. While only
19 projects are already in operation, the clean hy-
drogen consumption in the industry is expected to
be, in the space of a decade, at least 67 times the
expected amount in 2021. Although several tracked
!"#"$%&'()*+$%,,)-*$./ 01%23.,*45-2.6),*1.,7"#+&'.,*+2.8)1&7*35*5)%2*9:9;0
projects have not yet announced their start date, for 9:<:*',*=&*>9?5)%2*%
the purposes of this chapter, it is assumed that they
will become operational by 2030.
Figure 46 Cumulative planned low-carbon hydrogen consumption projects by 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and # of projects
10,000 140
9,000
120
8,000
Consumption (kt H2/year)
7,000 100
6,000
# of projects
5,220 80
5,000
4,173
60
4,000
3,230 3,230 3,230
3,000 2,513 40
2,054
2,000 1,551
20
1,000 480
333
77
0 0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Date N/A
Consumption # of projects
60
Although a number of announced projects do not commit to a firm date of completion, we assume those to be completed by 2030 for the purpose of this chapter.
Germany stands out as the country with the high-

est amount of planned low-carbon consumption
by industry: 2,000 kt H2/year, amounting, by 2030,
to 20% of the total number of projects and 38%
of the total hydrogen consumption. Spain comes
second with 1,002 kt H2/year of planned consump-
tion in 2030, followed by the Netherlands with
419 kt H2/year and Norway with 331 kt H2/year.
Planned clean hydrogen consumption by 2030
Figure 47 Map of total planned clean hydrogen consumption by country in ktH2/year by 2030
2,000 and above kt H2/year

1,000 – 1,999 kt H2/year
300 – 999 kt H2/year
100 – 299 kt H2/year
Up to 99 kt H2/year 192
No known projects 331
2
Not included in the analysis 167
245
419
2
10
2000
104
12
50
84 128
105
285 70
1002
10
Notes: Displayed electrolyser capacities reflect projects that have an official starting date by 2030. There are numerous other projects with unknown starting dates that could be finished by 2030, but a
8 this analysis.
At 1,969 kt H2/year, the steel industry presents the

highest share of low-carbon hydrogen planned to be
consumed by the industry, 38% by 2030. Although
the conventional production methods for steel are
not hydrogen demanding, new emerging CO2-free
technologies are, which causes the hydrogen de-
mand from this sector to rise. 18% of the total clean
hydrogen consumption is planned to be applied to
the production of e-fuels, 13% to ammonia produc-
tion, 11% to refining projects, 10% to methanol pro-
duction and 10% to other projects, which includes
industrial heat in different facilities.
Considering the projects announced so far, 66% of

total hydrogen consumption in industry plans to rely
on on-site or on dedicated contracted off-site hydro-
Hydrogen consumption in kt H2/year for the different industry s
gen production, as in these industries, a high vol-
ume of hydrogen consumption justifies investment
in a dedicated Hydrogen Generation Unit (HGU) or
merchant partnerships with specific production in-
stallations.
Figure 48 Hydrogen consumption in kt H2/year for the different industry sectors
540 568
540 568
Steel
912
912
E-fuels
Ammonia
Refineries
Other
Methanol
1,969
1 969
535
535
697
697
Refineries Steel Ammonia Methanol E-fuels Other
4.1 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN STEEL

The steel industry is one the biggest CO2 emitters ready delivered the first CO2-free steel to the first
due to the high amount of energy required and the buyer, Volvo.
result of the use of coke coal as raw material. Two
main routes are typically used to produce steel. While in 2019 the steel production split in Europe
The most conventional one integrates a blast fur- was around 58% BF/BOF and 42% EAF61, many fa-
nace (BF) and a basic oxygen furnace (BOF). Coal cilities are transitioning into less emission-intensive
is used as a reductant to transform iron ore into technology, which is reflected in many projects al-
steel. The second route uses an electric furnace arc ready planned to use low-carbon hydrogen in the
!"#"$%&'()*+$%,,)-*./,0"#+&'/,*+1/2).&0*',*0&))$*34*4)%1*5657
85696*',*:&*;5<
(EAF), powered by electricity, to produce steel from
steel scrap and direct reduced iron (DRI) in different
steel industry. Higher costs for the EAF route are
not as much associated with higher CAPEX values
proportions. While the EAF route is already less car- as higher operational costs due to hydrogen pric-
bon-intensive than the BF/BOF method, emissions es, electricity prices and acquisition of scrap. To
still occur when natural gas is used as a reductant produce one tonne of steel, 51-72 kg of hydrogen
to produce the DRI pellets. Replacing the natural can be required. Without cost on carbon emissions,
gas with low-carbon hydrogen, combined with the low-carbon hydrogen would need a price of 0.9 €/kg
supply of renewable electricity to power the EAF, to break even. Considering that the BF/BOF route
will help decarbonize the entire steel production can have CO2 emissions of around 1.6-2.2 tonne
process. Projects following this method are already per tonne of steel, a carbon cost of 29€/CO2e and
ongoing. A prime example is Hybrit which has al- a hydrogen price of 2 €/kg would be enough for the
DRI-H2 EAF route to break even.
Figure 49 Cumulative planned consumption projects in steel by 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and # of projects
3,000 30
2,500 25
1,969
2,000 20
# of projects
1,626
1,500 15
991 991 991

1,000 10
643
494
500 349 5
185 186
68
0 -
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Date
N/A
61
World Steel in Figures 2021
By 2030, 1,969 kt H2/year of low-carbon hydrogen With a total consumption of 1,076 kt H2/year of
is expected to be consumed by the steel industry, clean hydrogen in 8 projects, Germany has the high-
including projects without an announced operation est planned consumption of clean hydrogen in the
date. From 2021 to 2027, the consumption in this steel sector, which is not surprising considering that
industry is expected to increase, on average, 56.3% Germany is the biggest steel manufacturer in Eu-
annually, even though no significant growth is seen rope. Italy plans to consume approx. 256 kt H2/year
between 2022 and 2023. Between 2027 and 2029, clean hydrogen in steel, followed by Spain, Finland
low-carbon consumption in steel is also expect- and Romania with 141, 133 and 128 kt H2/year, re-
ed to remain constant at 991 kt H2/year. In 2030 a spectively. Together, these countries represent 88%
planned consumption of 635 kt H2/year is planned Planned
of the total planned clean hydrogen
clean hydrogen consumption
consumption in in stee
to be added. the steel sector.
Figure 50 Map of total planned clean hydrogen consumption in steel production by country in kt H2/year by 2030
1,000 and above kt H2/year

500 – 999 kt H2/year
200 – 499 kt H2/year
100 – 199 kt H2/year
Up to 99 kt H2/year
133
No known projects 1
66
115
1076
23
31 128
256
141
Notes: Displayed electrolyser capacities reflect projects that have an official starting date by 2030. There are numerous other projects with unknown starting dates that could be finished by 2030
9 this analysis.
4.2 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN E-FUELS

With constant pressure to reduce emissions in the of writing) consumption in this sector is expect-
entire mobility sector, alternative “green” fuels are ed to be deployed. Between 2024 and 2030, the
needed to help decarbonize hard-to-electrify vehi- planned consumption is expected to grow from
cles (e.g., aviation and maritime sectors). E-fuels are 771 kt H2/year to 912 kt H2/year if projects without
synthetic hydrogen-based fuels that can be burned announced operation dates are included in this time
in internal combustion engines. Provided that car- frame.
bon is captured from the atmosphere, renewable
electricity is used during the synthesis. The hydro- Most of the planned production of e-fuels is concen-
gen source is low-carbon; e-fuels such as e-meth- trated in Spain, with 84% of the total consumption
anol, e-ammonia, e-diesel, e-L(N)G, and e-kero- at 767 ktH2/year. Smaller projects are also seen in
sene are great alternatives to reduce emissions in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Austria and Belgium.
mobility. Carbon dioxide is still emitted during the
combustion of e-fuels but provided the conditions
expressed above are met; the CO2 emissions should
correspond to the amounts of carbon dioxide taken
out of the atmosphere and used in the production
process as a feedstock.
Significant consumption of clean hydrogen for

e-fuels production is only expected in 2024, where
85% of the total planned (announced as of the time
Figure 51 Schematic representation of the role of hydrogen and relevant e-fuels.
Source: TNO
Figure 52 Cumulative planned consumption projects in e-fuels production by 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and # of projects
1,000 16
912
900 822 822 822 822 822 14
771 785
800
12
700
# of projects
600 10
500 8
400 6
300
4
200
100 2
0.03 0.04 4
0 -
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Date 2030
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in e-fuels 2030
N/A
Figure 53
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in E-fuels 2030 (kt/year)
Map of total planned clean hydrogen consumption in e-fuels production by country in kt H2/year by 2030
Above 400 kt H2/year

100 – 400 kt H2/year
40 – 100 kt H2/year
25 – 40 kt H2/year
Up to 25 kt H2/year
11
15
48
15
15
767
Notes: Displayed electrolyser capacities reflect projects that have an official starting date by 2030. There are numerous other projects with unknown starting dates that could be finished by 2030, but are not included in
10 this analysis.
4.3 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN AMMONIA

With a total demand for hydrogen estimated at industry. With fossil fuel hydrogen prices around
2.6 Mt (102 TWhHHV) in 2019, the ammonia indus- 1.5 €/kg in Europe, carbon pricing is still needed to
try is the second-largest hydrogen consuming sector help low-carbon hydrogen break even in the ammo-
in the EU. When producing one tonne of ammonia, nia sector. For example, with low-carbon hydrogen
175-180 kg of hydrogen are necessary. at 2 €/kg, a carbon price of 56 €/tonne CO2e is
%&'()*+$%,,)-*./,0"#+&'/,*+1/2).&0*',*%##/,'%*34*4)%1*5657
Although it is normally used as a feedstock for fer- 85696*',*:&*;5 needed to break even.
tilizer production, ammonia has also been seen as Low-carbon ammonia projects planned to be op-
a potential energy carrier and/or fuel, already con- erational until 2030 amount to a total hydrogen
sidered a suitable e-fuel for maritime applications. consumption of 697 kt H2/year, with 54% planned
The widespread adoption of clean hydrogen in in- to be already in operation in 2025. Considering all
dustries where hydrogen is already part of the pro- ammonia production projects planning to replace
cess is, often, dependent on reaching cost parity fossil-fuel hydrogen with low-carbon hydrogen,
with fossil fuel hydrogen, also known as break-even 6.5 Mt of CO2 emissions could be avoided annually
price, which in turn is very much reliant on climate by 2030 from this sector alone.
policies, including prices on the CO2 emissions of
Figure 54 Cumulative planned consumption projects in ammonia production by 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and # of projects
2,000 25
1,800
1,600 20
1,400
# of projects
1,200 15
1,000
800 697 10
629
517 548 548 548
600
378
400 5
114 114 139
200
7
0 -
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Date
N/A

Norway stands out as the country with the high-

est planned consumption of low-carbon hydro-
gen for ammonia production, with a total of
279 kt H2/year, representing 40% of the total
planned clean hydrogen consumption in the sector.
Other notable countries include the Netherlands,
with 104 kt H2/year consumption and Denmark with
106 kt H2/year consumption.
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in ammon
Figure 55 Map of total planned clean hydrogen consumption in ammonia production by country in kt H2/year by 2030
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in Ammonia 2030 (kt/year)
200 and above kt H2/year
100 – 199 kt H2/year
70 – 99 kt H2/year
30 – 69 kt H2/year
Up to 29 kt H2/year
Not included in the analysis 2
106
104
2
35
12
10
95
52

11 this analysis.
4.4 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN REFINING

Hydrogen in refining is used for hydrotreating and Around 11% of the total low-carbon hydrogen
hydrocracking processes. Hydrotreatment is one consumption planned by 2030 concerns replac-
of the key stages of the diesel refining process. It ing fossil-fuel-based hydrogen with low-carbon
refers to several processes, such as hydrogenation, hydrogen in refining, with a total consumption of
hydrodesulfurization, hydrodenitrification and hy- 568 kt H2/year expected by 2030 in this sector. Sig-
drodemetalization. Hydrocracking involves trans- nificant deployment is expected to start in 2023, with
forming long and unsaturated products into prod- 136 kt H2/year cumulative consumption. Between
ucts with a lower molecular weight than the feed. 2023 and 2027, clean hydrogen consumption in re-
As the oil refining sector is the biggest hydrogen fining is expected to grow gradually, with an average
&'()*+$%,,)-*./,0"#+&'/,*+1/2).&0*',*1)3',',4*56*6)%1*7879:78;8*',*<&*=7>6)%1*%,-*
consumer in the EU, the replacement of fossil fuel annual growth of 28%. Considering the totality of
hydrogen with low-carbon hydrogen results in CO2 refining projects planning to replace fossil-fuel hy-
emissions reduction. Similar to the ammonia indus- drogen with low-carbon hydrogen, 4.7 Mt of CO2
try, the break-even price for refineries would be emissions could be avoided annually in this sector
1.5 €/kg if no CO2 costs are considered. With car- by 2030.
bon costs of 56 €/kg, clean hydrogen at 2 €/kg
would reach cost parity with fossil fuel hydrogen.
Figure 56 Cumulative planned consumption projects in refining by 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and # of projects
1,000 35
900
30
800
700 25
568
# of projects
600
20
500 447
363 363 363 15
400
254 270
300 10
193
200 136
5
100
2 8
0 -
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Date
N/A

The country with the highest projected consumption

of clean hydrogen in refining is Germany, with nine
projects and 205 kt H2/year of hydrogen consump-
tion, followed by Bulgaria with only one project
accounting for a total of 70 kt H2/year consump-
tion and the Netherlands with three projects and a
66 kt H2/year total consumption. Sweden and
Finland both present one project planned, with
52 kt H2/year and 48 kt H2/year planned consump-
tion, respectively, and Spain, with three projects, Planned clean hydrogen consumption in refinin
plans for a consumption of 42 kt H2/year.
Figure 57 Map of total planned clean hydrogen consumption in refining by country in kt H2/year by 2030
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in Refining 2030 (kt/year)

100 – 199 kt H2/year
40 – 99 kt H2/year
20 – 39 kt H2/year
Up to 19 kt H2/year
48
No known projects
52
33
66
10
205
1
5
70
29
3 42
Source:electrolyser
Notes: Displayed Hydrogencapacities
Europe reflect projects that have an official starting date by 2030. There are numerous other projects with unknown starting dates that could be finished by 2030
12 this analysis.
4.4 CLEAN HYDROGEN

IN METHANOL
Similar to ammonia, methanol can have different Total planned consumption of clean hydrogen for
uses as a chemical product or an e-fuel. To produce the specific production of e-methanol accounts
e-methanol, carbon dioxide and hydrogen are both for 535 kt H2/year until 2030, 10% of the total
nned consumption projects in methanol by year 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and
needed as feedstock, making this process a com-
mon end-use for the currently planned low-carbon
planned consumption in the industry. 46% of the
total planned consumption is expected to be de-
hydrogen production. ployed only in 2027. An additional consumption of
202 kt H2/year is only expected three years later in
2030.
Figure 58 Cumulative planned consumption projects in methanol production by 2021-2030 in kt H2/year and # of projects
600 14
535
500 475 12
10
400
# of projects
333 333 333
8
300
6
200
4
88 88
100 50 2
2 15
-
0 -
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Date
N/A

With a total consumption of 265 kt H2/year in 3

planned projects, Germany is the country with the
highest amount of hydrogen consumption for meth-
anol production. Other countries, like Denmark
with 105 kt H2/year, Belgium with 89 kt H2/year,
France with 46 kt H2/year, the Netherlands with
17 kt H2/year, and Sweden with 12 kt H2/year are
also planning to move forward in this sector.
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in methan
Figure 59 Map of total planned clean hydrogen consumption in methanol production by country in kt H2/year by 2030
Planned clean hydrogen consumption in Methanol 2030 (kt/year)

200 – 299 kt H2/year
100 – 199 kt H2/year
50 – 99 kt H2/year
Up to 49 kt H2/year
No known projects
12
105
17
265
89
46

13 this analysis.
EU POLICIES
AND INCENTIVES
The EU’s climate obligations and ambitions, in particular,
the commitment to ensure net carbon neutrality by
2050 and to ensure a reduction of at least 55% GHG
emission reduction by 2030, are reshaping most
aspects of EU policy and legislation.
Entire areas of EU Policy, particularly Energy, Mobil- in the past year rather than provide a full and com-
ity, Taxation, Industrial Policy, Climate and Environ- prehensive overview of EU legislation and policy.
mental protection, et cetera are being re-designed
to shift our economies away from carbon-emitting Therefore, the chapter below aims to present the
energy sources and carriers. main policy developments affecting Hydrogen that
This revision of the policy and legislative environ- have taken place in the past year, focusing on legis-
ment has had an immense impact on the hydrogen lative developments (both adopted legal acts as well
market, an impact that will only continue to grow in as legislative proposals) as well as non-legislative
the next years as legislative proposals become law. measures such as policy strategies. In the sections
below, we will aim to synthesize the main EU-level
As navigating the plethora of EU soft and binding political and legislative initiatives of the past year,
laws can seem daunting and complex, this chapter from those merely announced to those entered into
aims to briefly explain the hydrogen-related content force.
of EU legislative acts and non-binding strategy pa-
pers. For a complete picture or historical overview, please
review the 2020 edition of the Clean Hydrogen
Given the nature of this report as a yearly publica- Monitor.
tion, this chapter aims to present the relevant acts
adopted, launched, or presented at the EU level
As navigating the plethora of EU

soft and binding law can seem
daunting and complex, this chapter
aims to briefly explain the content
and relevance relative to hydrogen
of EU legislative acts and non-
binding strategy papers.
5.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND

PROPOSALS ADOPTED/
PRESENTED IN 2020 AND 2021
The adoption of the European Hydrogen Strategy While the foundations for the legislative environ-
on 8th July 202062 marked an important shift in EU ment affecting hydrogen were already in place63, the
policy regarding the development of an EU wide developments which took place following the adop-
clean hydrogen market. Since then, it has become tion of the European Hydrogen Strategy64 on the
increasingly clear that the EU is aiming to and willing 8th of July 2020 have the potential to be truly trans-
to enact legislation supporting the development of formational for the Clean Hydrogen sector. Figure
an emerging clean hydrogen market in Europe. 60 below presents just a few of such developments
which are likely to have a major impact.
Figure 60 Main Energy and Climate Legislative acts and proposals affecting Hydrogen released or proposed in
2020 and 2021
62
See Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2020 ( https://www.hydrogeneurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Clean-Hydrogen-Monitor-2020.pdf ) for a full
analysis of the European Hydrogen Strategy
63
for a foundational baseline, please consult the Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2020 as well as the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory (www.fchobservatory.
eu)
64
COM(2020) 301 final, A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf
5.1.1 EU CLIMATE LAW – A BINDING limit ourselves to a short presentation of the legisla-
LEGAL ACT tive proposals within the Fit-for-55 package with the
highest potential impact on the Hydrogen market
On 30 June 2021, the (revised) EU Climate Law65 and highlight those provisions which are most rel-
was formally adopted. This short (only ten pages evant
of legal text) but monumental EU Regulation sets Revision of the Renewable Energy
the binding objective of climate neutrality (net-zero Directive (RED)
emissions) in the EU by 2050. Furthermore, it sets
a new EU target of reducing greenhouse gas emis- The European Commission’s (EC) revised proposal
sions by at least 55% by 203066 (up from 40%) and for the RED raises the renewable energy target from
lays down that the transition to climate neutrality is 32-40%. Particularly important for Hydrogen, the
to be “irreversible”. This has set the stage for the proposal includes:
“fit-for-55” legislative proposal package, which we ∙ minimum binding targets for the use of renew-
will present below. able hydrogen in the industry: 50% of hydrogen
consumption must be achieved with renewable
The transition to climate fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs)
∙ minimum binding targets for the use of RFN-
neutrality is to be BOs in the transport sector, including renew-
“irreversible” able hydrogen consumed in refineries: at least
2,6% of the total consumption of energy for the
The impact that the EU Climate Law has on the de- transport sector.
velopment of the hydrogen market cannot be un- ∙ specific provisions introduced to mainstream
derstated. As a carbon-free energy carrier and as a renewable energy in heating and cooling so
zero/low carbon67 fuel, hydrogen is indispensable that the 1.1 percentage point annual increase in
to any scenario for reaching net-carbon neutrali- heating and cooling becomes a binding base-
ty.68 While lesser GHG emission reduction targets line, on top of which each country will have a
may have been achieved without or with smaller specific indicative top-up. Such an increase can
amounts of (low carbon) hydrogen, only an energy be achieved in multiple ways, including the use
system built around electricity and hydrogen (with a of renewable hydrogen for heating.
complementary role for advanced biofuels) can real- ∙ an indicative target of at least a 49 % share of
istically achieve the targets of the EU Climate Law. By energy from renewable sources in the buildings
setting a binding and irreversible objective of climate sector
neutrality, the EU Climate Law effectively guaranteed ∙ provisions extending the scope of the Union
the adoption of (low carbon) hydrogen in the EU Database to cover the tracing of liquid and
gaseous renewable fuels and recycled carbon
5.1.2 THE FIT FOR-55 PACKAGE AND fuels as well as their life cycle GHG emissions
Represents LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ∙ other provisions affecting hydrogen directly
perhaps the most and indirectly
fundamental The Fit-for-55 legislative package, proposed by
change to the the European Commission on 14th July 2021, rep- If adopted in its current form, the revised Renew-
EU legislative resents perhaps the most fundamental change to able Energy Directive generates demand for re-
acquis since the the EU legislative acquis since the completion of newable-only Hydrogen of at least 4.9 Mt and, as
completion of the EU single market. The package touches upon such, represents one of the main drivers for the
the EU single almost all aspects of the EU economy, especially in widespread adoption of renewable hydrogen in
market. energy, industry and mobility. In this report, we will the EU.
65
Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality
66
Compared to 1990 levels
67
If produced from renewable or low-carbon sources
68
See, for example, IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 - a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, available at https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) The current ETS scheme will be extended to most
maritime transport. The same rules on auctioning,
The EU ETS is also slated to undergo a major re- transfer, surrender and cancellation of allowances,
vision. The main change is that the emissions penalties and registries would apply to emissions
covered by the ETS should deliver 61% GHG from intra-EU voyages while at berth in an EU port
emissions reduction by 2030 (up from 43%). This and half of the emissions from extra-EU voyages.
higher target will be achieved by combining a high- Surrender obligations will be gradually phased be-
er Linear Reduction Factor (LRF) and a one-off re- tween 2021-2025. As of 2026, shipping companies
duction of the cap. This increased ambition of the will have to surrender 100% of their verified emis-
carbon market will likely trigger the clean switch sions. Shipowners will have to surrender units for
across multiple applications driven by higher CO2 20% of verified emissions reported for 2023, 45% for
prices (e.g. in Ammonia, steel and cement produc- 2024, 70% for 2025, and 100% by 2026. Non-surren-
tion). This is a positive step to incentivise the ramp dered allowances during the phase-in period would
of clean hydrogen in all sectors covered by the ETS. be cancelled. Last but not least, the extension of
the ETS to road transport and buildings in a sepa-
Production of Furthermore, free allocation is made conditional rate ETS without free allowances was confirmed. The
electrolytic on installations’ decarbonisation efforts. Installa- cap of the new ETS for road transport and buildings
hydrogen will be tions covered by energy audit obligations will be will be set from 2026 onwards, alongside a linear
included under required to implement report recommendations or reduction factor in line with a 45% emissions reduc-
the EU ETS, other measures leading to equivalent GHG reduction in these sectors by 2030 compared to 2005. A
making them tion; otherwise, free allocation will be reduced by price-based cost-containment mechanism will avoid
eligible for free 25%. The proposal specifies that the requirements price spikes, and a new and separate MSR for the
allowances, a hold for investments with a pay-back period no lon- two sectors will start operating in 2027.
move that will ger than five years.
further support The Innovation and Modernisation Funds are
the business case Sectors covered by the proposed Carbon Border strengthened as additional auctioned allowances
for such facilities Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) - steel, alumini- from the current ETS will feed into their budgets.
um, cement, fertilizers, and electricity – would have However, 100% of ETS revenues must be used for
a 10-year transition period to adapt to the new re- climate-related purposes.
gime before free allocation is fully phased out. Free ∙ Modernisation Fund. An additional 2.5%
allocation in sectors covered by the CBAM would of the cap is auctioned to fund the transition
decline by 10% yearly, starting in 2026 and would in MS with below-average GDP per capita in
be zero by 2035. 2016-18. The fund cannot finance investment
in any type of fossil fuel. (this used to apply only
Free allocation of allowances will also be phased to solid fossil fuels)
out for the aviation sector by 2026 (for intra-EU ∙ Innovation Fund. 200 mln allowances are add-
flights). Extra-European flights are to be subject ed to the Fund, 150 from the transport and
to offset under the international CORSIA scheme buildings ETS. The scope of the fund includes
(transport). support of the project via carbon contracts for
difference (CCfDs).
Importantly, the EU ETS proposal includes produc- ∙ The Social Climate Fund will mobilise €72.2
ing electrolytic hydrogen under the EU emissions billion for 2025-2032 to support households
trading scheme, making renewable and low-carbon and transport users affected by the new EU
facilities eligible for free allowances. This will fur- ETS. The purpose of the fund is to help the
ther improve their economics as allowance sales
will boost their revenues.
Member States in more vulnerable situations.

∙ In the buildings sector, it will support invest- Energy Tax Directive
ments in energy efficiency, renovation, clean
heating and cooling and integration of renew- The proposed revision to the Energy Taxation Direc-
able energy. tive heavily incentivised a switch to renewable and
∙ In the transport sector, it will support all invest- low-carbon hydrogen and derived fuels by setting
ments in zero or low emission mobility. out minimal taxation rates compared to unabated
fossil fuels.
Carbon Border Adjustment
Mechanism (CBAM) The revision aims to tax energy content rather than
volume and places energy products in different tax
While several hydrogen consuming sectors (e.g., categories based on their environmental perfor-
cement, steel, and fertilizers) are included within mance when setting minimum excise rates, a rank-
the scope of the proposed CBAM (alongside elec- ing of which must be maintained when MS set actual
tricity and aluminium), hydrogen itself (N.B. which rates. This will ensure that the environmental impact
is not subject to any meaningful international trade of individual fuels is better reflected, helping busi-
at the moment) is not and neither are chemicals or nesses and consumers alike make cleaner choices.
petrochemicals. In essence, how energy products are categorised for
taxation purposes has been simplified to ensure that
In line with the CBAM, importers will have a pay- fuels most harmful to the environment are taxed the
ment obligation, starting from 2026, at a level that most.
would create a level based on CO2 prices under
the ETS for the corresponding goods, minus the Some of the so-called fossil fuel subsidies delivered
free allocations still being received by those sec- through exemptions for certain products and home
tors. Following a transitional period, free allocation heating will be phased out. This will ensure that fos-
will be phased out gradually, which will begin with sil fuels are no longer taxed below minimum rates.
the initial payment obligation for importers. Member States will be able to support vulnerable
The Commission proposes a 10-year transition peri- households and protect against energy poverty.
od before free allocations are fully phased out. The Moreover, fossil fuels used as fuel for intra-EU air
share of free permits for the sectors affected will still transport, maritime transport and fishing should no
be 100% in 2025 and will gradually decline by 10% longer be fully exempt from energy taxation in the
each year to reach zero in 2035. When free alloca- EU – a crucial measure given the role of these sec-
tions are maintained, the CBAM will only apply to tors in energy consumption and pollution.
those emissions above the free allocation received
by domestic producers. The methodology for cal- The proposal foresees preferential tax rates for re-
culating the reduction in the number of CBAM cer- newable and low-carbon hydrogen (during a 10y
tificates to be surrendered by importers to reflect transition period for the latter), incentivising the use
free allocation will be determined by implementing of clean hydrogen in multiple applications, not least
acts. in maritime and aviation.
Importers that fail to declare the emissions embed- ∙ Conventional fossil fuels, such as gas oil and
ded in imports will be subject to a default value, petrol, and non-sustainable biofuels will
which will be the average carbon intensity for com- be subject to the highest minimum rate of
parable products in the country of origin. €10.75/GJ when used as a motor fuel and
€0.9/GJ when used for heating.
∙ Natural gas, LPG, and non-renewable fuels of
non-biological origin (i.e., fossil hydrogen): ject to the lowest minimum rate of €0.15/GJ
while fossil-based, they can still support de- ∙ Low-carbon hydrogen and related fuels will
carbonisation in the short and medium-term. also benefit from that same rate for a transi-
Two-thirds of the reference rate will apply tional period of 10 years.
to this category for a transitional period of
10 years – i.e., a minimum rate of €7.17/GJ The tax for aviation fuel will be introduced gradu-
when used for motor fuel and €0.6/GJ when ally before reaching the final minimum rate after a
used for heating - before being taxed at the 10-year transitional period (i.e., ten years after entry
same rate as conventional fossil fuels. into force, a minimum rate of €10.75/GJ will apply).
∙ Sustainable but not advanced biofuels: to re- Shipping fuels will be subject to a low minimum tax
flect these products’ potential in supporting rate to avoid ‘bunker evasion’ (economic incentive
decarbonisation, half of the reference rate to purchase fuel outside the EU). Alternatives to
applies – i.e., a minimum of €5.38/GJ when fossil fuels used for air and maritime transport (such
used as motor fuel and €0.45/GJ when used as Advanced sustainable biofuels and biogas and
for heating. renewable fuels of non-biological origin such as re-
∙ The lowest minimum rate of €0.15/GJ applies newable hydrogen) will not be taxed for a 10-year
to electricity - regardless of its use and regard- transitional period.
less of the primary energy source used for its Renewable fuels of non-biological
production (which will also be exempt)* origin such as renewable hydrogen
∙ Advanced sustainable biofuels and biogas,
will also be subject to the lowest
and renewable fuels of non-biological origin
minimum rate of €0.15/GJ
such as renewable hydrogen will also be sub-
Box 1 Applying excise tax on electricity – A continued loophole for fossil fuels to escape excise taxation?
Electricity is the least taxed energy product, irrespective of the production

method (i.e. even when produced from coal or gas). The Impact Assessment
accompanying the Commission proposal states that this choice has been made
as a result of the technical difficulties that would have come with a differentiated
level of taxation for electricity based on its carbon footprint.
This logic appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the directive, as for
Hydrogen, RFNBOs, and Biogas/Natural Gas, taxation is differentiated according
to the environmental footprint, i.e. a large tax is applied for fossil hydrogen, a
lower one for low-carbon hydrogen and an even lower for renewable hydrogen)
Additionally, the fossil fuels used for the production of electricity are exempt
from taxation under the proposal. Even though the Directive does give the
possibility for MS to tax fossil fuels used for the production of electricity, this
possibility is left at the discretion of MS.

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure FuelEU Maritime

Regulation (AFIR - formerly AFID
The promotion of hydrogen and hydrogen derived
The AFIR proposal, as a directly applicable Regu- fuels in the maritime sector is enabled by clear tar-
lation, sets binding targets for the development of gets to reduce emissions, starting in 2025 set on
hydrogen refuelling infrastructure along the TEN-T shipping companies. The targets themselves are
core network, the TEN-T comprehensive network based on the fleet average GHG (CO2+CH4+N2O)
and urban nodes while also taking into consider- intensity of the energy used onboard by ships in
ation the role of multimodal hubs. It promotes the 2020 based on a lifecycle assessment. From this ref-
roll-out of hydrogen refuelling stations at a maxi- erence point, the emission level is reduced by:
mum distance of 150km in-between stations. ∙ 2% from 1 January 2025
∙ 6% from 1 January 2030
In order to take into account the specificities for ∙ 13% from 1 January 2035
heavy-duty vehicles, as well as cars and light-duty ∙ 26% from 1 January 2040
transport, it requires a minimum daily capacity of ∙ 59% from 1 January 2045
2 t of H /day and at least a 700-bar dispenser. ∙ 75% from 1 January 2050.
Additionally, liquid hydrogen shall be made avail- The obligations apply to ships above 5,000 gross
able at publicly accessible refuelling stations with tonnages. The scope is aligned with the extended
a maximum distance of 450 km in-between them. EU ETS extension to the maritime sector (see ETS re-
While it stops short of targets for hydrogen infra- vision), namely all intra-EU voyages and stays within
structure for ships, at ports and airports, it does a port of call covered. Half of the voyages between
state that National Policy Frameworks, prepared EU and non-EU ports of call will also be included.
by the Member States by 2025, should contain de- The pooling of Fuel-EU certificates allowing ship-
ployment plans for alternative fuels infrastructure pers to balance compliance at a fleet level will be
in inland waterway transport, maritime ports, and allowed. Penalties for non-compliance are set at a
airports. high level (creating a strong incentive for compli-
ance), and the compliance deficit will be allocated
CO2 Standards Regulation for Cars to the EU ETS.
and Vans
The proposal to revise the CO2 Standards Regu-

lations for light-duty vehicles maintains its 2025
target sets an increased emission GHG reduction
The CO2 emission
target for cars and vans by 2030, this time differ- standards proposal
entiating between cars (55% reduction) and vans includes a new target
(50% reduction), which represents a strong policy
incentive for the adoption of zero-emission vehi-
for 100% emission
cles, both BEVs and FCEVs. reductions in 2035,
effectively signalling the
In addition, the proposal includes a new target for
100% emission reductions in 2035, effectively sig-
phase-out of the internal
nalling the phase-out of the internal combustion combustion engine
engine under the current account scheme (tank
to wheel) in favour of zero tailpipe emission vehi-
cles. This would mean that, if adopted, all new cars
sold in the EU after 2035 must be either BEVs and
FCEVs.
RefuelEU Aviation 5.1.3 TRANS-EUROPEAN NETWORK

– ENERGY (TEN-E) PROPOSAL
The Refuel EU Aviation is a Regulation that is set to
apply as of 1’st January 2023. It sets an obligation Although not part of the Fit-for-55 package, the pro-
on fuel suppliers to provide sustainable aviation posal for the revision of the TEN-E Regulation, which
fuels to airlines at all EU airports. This obligation was published in December 2020, also represents a
only considers Sustainable Aviation Fuels such as highly relevant, important legislative proposal that
biofuels, advanced biofuels and RFNBOs, which are lays the groundwork for the mainstreaming of Hy-
chemically identical to the fossil fuels they are re- drogen in the European Energy System by revising
placing. After 2030, it introduced a minimum share the 2013 version.
of e-fuels (RFNBOs) within the obligation.
Formerly, the legislation considered four energy in-
The targets set by the regulation are: frastructure categories: electricity, gas, oil, and car-
∙ From 1/1/25, a minimum 2% SAF bon dioxide. The 2020 proposal brought the main
∙ From 1/1/30, minimum 5% SAF, of which change in that respect, as it proposed the following
a minimum of 0.7% of synthetic aviation fuels five categories: electricity, smart gas grid, hydro-
∙ From 1/1/35, minimum 20% SAF, of which gen, electrolysers, and carbon dioxide. The hydro-
a minimum of 5% of synthetic aviation fuels gen sector is now fully considered, and natural
∙ From 1/1/40, minimum 32% SAF, of which gas and oil infrastructure projects are excluded
a minimum of 8% of synthetic aviation fuels from future PCI lists. The Regulation foresees the
∙ From 1/1/45, minimum 38% SAF, of which planning for the conversion of Europe’s natural gas
a minimum of 11% of synthetic aviation fuels infrastructure to hydrogen and the emergence of
∙ From 1/1/50, minimum 63% SAF, of which the hydrogen backbone. Furthermore, all future in-
a minimum of 28% of synthetic aviation frastructure investments must be fit-for-purpose and
fully aligned with the objectives of the European
A transitional period until the end of 2029 will ap- Green Deal.
ply, during which fuel suppliers may supply the
minimum share (2%) of sustainable aviation fuel as
a weighted average over all the aviation fuel they
supplied across Union airports for that reporting
period (instead of the minimum 2% for each air-
port).
5.2 NON-BINDING POLICIES

AND STRATEGIES
In the EU’s legislative process, non-binding policy cation’ is not mentioned either and ‘heat pump’ only
documents, strategies, communications, white pa- once, for example).
pers and other soft law examples play an important
role in setting a long-term vision for the direction Decarbonisation of Heating and Cooling (H&C) re-
that will be eventually be taken by EU law. mains a priority area, with an increased share of re-
newable heat and an increased replacement rate of
Although not as directly impactful as the legislative heat equipment foreseen. Therefore, the integration
acts and proposals presented in the sub-sections of renewables will be a key focus – the synergies of-
above, non-legislative acts are also important to un- fered by linking H&C and transport infrastructure are
derstand, should someone be interested in under- underlined.
standing the role that hydrogen may play in the EU
over the long term. The strategy links back to the subsequent revision
of RED II (now released), where the use of decar-
Renovation Wave bonised gases is a major aspect, particularly when
offering synergies with local agricultural and indus-
The European Commission published its Renovation trial sectors, which could provide opportunities for
Wave on October 14, 2020. This strategy aims to hydrogen hydrogen-based gases.
help improve the energy performance of buildings
and provides a roadmap of EU targets to achieve by In a nutshell, the legislative proposals to look out for
2030, accompanied by a series of policy measures. in priority to follow up on this strategy’s ambitions
Buildings are responsible for about 40% of the EU’s and to know more on the regulation of hydrogen in
energy consumption and 36% of greenhouse gas residential applications are the RED II and ETS revi-
(GHG) emissions. sions (out since July 2021) and the EPBD and Ecode-
sign revisions (Q4 2021).
The main targets are:
∙ 60% reduction in buildings’ GHG emissions; Offshore Renewable Strategy
∙ 14% reduction in buildings’ final energy con-
sumption; The European Commission published its Offshore
∙ 18% reduction of the energy consumption for Renewable Strategy on November 19, 2020.
heating and cooling (H&C); In a nutshell, the strategy:
∙ Double the renovation rate by 2030. ∙ Aims to reach 300 GW of offshore wind in-
stalled capacity by 2050 and for 40 GW for
Looking at heating fuels and technologies, hydro- ocean energies;
gen and fuel cells are not mentioned in the strategy. ∙ Estimates required investments at around
Yet, there is no particular focus and details on specif- €800bn (2/3 for grid infrastructure, 1/3 for off-
ic priority technologies to decarbonise heating and shore energy generation);
cooling (H&C) in buildings in the strategy (‘electrifi- ∙ Wants to give a push to cross-border co-
operation via hybrid projects, consisting Sustainable and Smart Mobility

of cross-border offshore renewable energy Strategy (SSMS)
plants with potentially various grid connection
settings (tackled under TEN-E revision), in the The European Commission published the Sustain-
perspective of a future ‘fully meshed off-shore able and Smart Mobility Strategy on 9 December
energy system,’ where independent system 2020.
operators could emerge;
∙ Plans to create an offshore bidding zone for It provides a vision of the European transport system
hybrid projects, what is thought to be the and transport policies, especially in the perspective
‘right framework’ for the development of of decarbonisation of the sector. Indeed, to achieve
large-scale offshore projects, including those carbon neutrality by 2050, EU transport greenhouse
in hydrogen production; gas emissions will have to be cut by 90% emissions
∙ Identifies some main funding schemes by 2050. The Strategy lays out the European Com-
(InvestEU, RRF, CEF) for infrastructure and en- mission roadmap to achieve these goals in the next
ergy production project development. ten years. Moreover, with transport as a major end-
∙ use for hydrogen, the Strategy is highly relevant
With direct high-voltage current (HVDC), offshore for the hydrogen sector. In a nutshell, the Strategy
hydrogen production and hydrogen pipelines are adopts an integrated approach by looking at de-
considered the most promising means of delivering mand, supply, infrastructure, and fuels in the trans-
offshore energy to consumption centres onshore. port sector.
While the power grid extension is considered, the
lack of offshore grid or lengthy grid development The European Commission’s Strategy foresees a to-
is highlighted, and onshore needs should be con- tal of 30 million zero-emission cars and 80,000 ze-
sidered under grid planning exercise, particularly ro-emission lorries by 2030. It plans that nearly all
when linking offshore energy to hydrogen produc- cars, vans, buses, and new heavy-duty vehicles will
tion. be zero-emission by 2050. Hydrogen and renewable
and low-carbon fuels are quasi systematically men-
The role of PtX (including hydrogen and ammonia) tioned therein aside from electrification as solutions
in energy system integration is recalled and linked to decarbonise the various transport modes. The
with Energy System Integration and Hydrogen Commission’s vision for transport strives to be tech-
Strategies. Indeed, PtX could be used to partially nology-neutral while prioritising energy-efficient
make up for the limits of large-scale deployment solutions by ‘looking at the whole-life cycle.’
of HVDC, reinforcing a potential role for hydrogen
infrastructure in offshore grid planning. It adds that RED II revision could add minimum
shares or quotas to incentivise the deployment of
Finally, the strategy considers the synergies be- sustainable fuels (which it did, cf. RED II revision
tween hydrogen, grid connection, and maritime analysis under Fit for 55 Package section), possibly
sector: ‘In the medium to the longer-term, on-site incentivising hydrogen deployment. It is mentioned
conversion of renewable electricity into hydrogen several times, too, that upcoming key files such as
(i.e., hydrogen offshore production directly by the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive (AFID) and
offshore renewable plant) and its shipping or on- TEN-T revision proposals should be aligned with
site fuelling will become relevant.’ energy system integration and hydrogen strategies.
Regarding road transport, the Strategy provides the
Overall, hydrogen is highly featured as an energy Commission’s first clear targets for hydrogen refuel-
carrier that can play a “nodal role” in an ‘integrated ling stations: 500 in 2025 and 1,000 in 2030, up from
energy system’ – as the EC Energy System Integra- 144 currently. Whereas the need identified by the
tion puts it – and here, in the deployment of off-
shore renewables.
industry is larger (1,500 HRS would be needed by

2030 for the heavy-duty sector), target-based rolling
out of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure across the
TEN-T will help incentivise the switch to hydrogen
mobility solutions and tackle the chicken-and-egg-
problem. The Strategy also forecasts a substantial
share of hydrogen (31-40%) and e-fuels (10-17%) in
the road transport sector in 2050.
In addition, the creation of a new Alliance on Re-

newable and Low-Carbon Fuels Value Chain will be
considered, where hydrogen and hydrogen-made
fuels would undoubtedly represent a key element.
Industrial Strategy
Under its EU Green Deal, the Commission wants the Those who move
industrial policy to deliver the development and in-
first and move fastest
tegration of low-carbon solutions through policies
and financial instruments at the EU and national lev-
will hold a greater
el and via the private sector. The logic is that those competitive advantage
who move first and move fastest will hold a greater
competitive advantage. The latest European Indus-
trial Strategy (published in March 2020) focuses on
the Commission’s green and digital goals and on
strengthening Europe’s sovereignty. In addition, the
Commission published a revised version of its Indus-
trial Strategy in May 2021, focusing on ‘strategic au-
tonomy’ and recovery.
The Commission perceives hydrogen as a key The Commission

breakthrough technology where the EU should have
perceives hydrogen
frontrunners in developing commercial applications.
as a key breakthrough
Hydrogen is one of the six strategic sectors the
Commission provides a detailed supply risk analysis technology where
for. It stresses external dependencies, especially for the EU should have
raw materials (PGM) and fuel cell and electrolysers frontrunners in
assemblies. In this respect, alliances such as Euro- developing commercial
pean Clean Hydrogen Alliance and the European
applications.
Raw Material Alliance and IPCEIs have a key role to
play in helping to secure supply and foster domes-
tic production and communicate on risks and bot-
tlenecks for technology ramp-up. The Commission
is also considering launching an Alliance on Zero
Emission Aviation, along with the Renewable and
Low-Carbon Fuels Alliance, where hydrogen could
play a main role.
5.3 EXPECTATIONS FOR THE

FUTURE PERIOD (Q3 AND
Q4 2021 AND 2022)
After the “Fit for 55” package was released on The publication of the Renewable Energy Directive’s
14 July, 14 December could also mark a key day in delegated act on additionality, geographic and tem-
EU energy, climate, and transport policies. Indeed, poral correlation, a crucial act for enabling (or pro-
regarding the energy and climate dimension, the hibiting) renewable hydrogen projects from being
Commission plans to publish revisions of the Third implemented in practice, was still expected at the
Energy Package for gas and the Energy Performance time of writing.
of Buildings Directive (EPBD). Those should be ac-
companied by plans to reduce methane emissions in Finally, the revision of the TEN-T regulation will be an
the energy sector, a Commission Communication on opportunity for the Commission to align guidelines
Restoring sustainable carbon cycles and a Council on transport infrastructure funding with transport
Recommendation to address the social and labour objectives under the EU Green Deal, not least the
aspects of the climate transition. 90% emission reduction target by 2050. As set out
in the 2020 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy,
The Commission also intends to present an ‘Efficient it should ensure that new guidelines are consistent
and green mobility package,’ comprising revisions with the ‘do no significant harm’ principle and that
of the Regulation on the trans-European transport transport corridors are completed on time. In addi-
network (TEN-T) and the Directive on Intelligent tion, it should provide further opportunities for the
Transport Systems and a new EU urban mobility uptake of clean transportation modes, including for
framework and rail freight corridors initiative. hydrogen technologies, such as support for hydro-
gen refuelling stations deployment, consistent with
A sustainable products policy initiative, including a both the AFIR and the revised TEN-E.
revision of the Ecodesign Directive, should be re-
leased as well.
For the hydrogen sector, the revision of the Third

Renewable Energy
Gas Package will be the milestone to revise gas Directive’s delegated act
market rules and a major chance to make it fit for the on additionality, geographic
ramping up of hydrogen production, transport, and and temporal correlation,
use. The initiative’s title, ‘Hydrogen and Decar- a crucial act for enabling
bonised Gas package,’ indicates the new leading
(or prohibiting) renewable
role that hydrogen is set to play. The revision will
indeed aim to ‘facilitate the market entry of renew-
hydrogen projects from
able and low-carbon gases and remove any undue being implemented in
regulatory barriers.’ practice, was still expected
at the time of writing
57
European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 490 – Report, 2019. Accessible via: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/support/docs/report_2019_en.pdf
Figure 61 Upcoming legislative proposals with a significant impact on hydrogen deployment
• Revision of the energy performance of Buildings Directive

• Sustainable products policy initiative, including a revision of the Legend:
Ecodesign Directive Legislative
• Revision of the Third Energy Package for gas (Directive
2009/73/EU and Regulation 715/2009/EU) to regulate
Non-legislative
competitive decarbonised gas markets
• Revision of TEN-T Regulation
– Commission’s proposals
2021 2022
Q4 2021
Oct Nov Dec
• Development of a Euro 7 emission standards for cars, vans,

lorries and buses
• Revision of the Industrial Emission Directive (IED)
• Revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation
• RED II Delegated Act – on additionality and geographical and • CO2 emission
temporal correlation
performance standards
– Commission’s proposals – HDVs
• Weight and Dimension
Directive review
Revision of the Communication on IPCEI
– Commission's Communication

FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES
As climate objectives become more and more
urgent and the need for action more immediate,
so do the expectations of hydrogen and the role it
should play to accelerate decarbonisation efforts.
It is becoming increasingly clear that, to meet grow- tunities that will be made available for hydrogen
ing expectations, the hydrogen projects, plans and technologies. It is structured along two sub-chapters
ambitions presented in the chapters above need focusing on:
to become a reality and take their place within the ∙ EU funding programmes and
broader energy system. However, for these proj- ∙ Relevant investments under the Recovery and
ects to become a reality at the scale they are Resilience Facility (RRF) and national recovery
needed, they require a sustainable business mod- plans (RRPs)
el backed up by funding and investments.
This chapter attempts to shed some light on some

of the most important, immediate funding oppor-
For projects to become a reality

at the scale they are needed, they
require a sustainable business
model backed up by funding and
investments.
6.1 EU FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
For the EU to meet the increased climate ambition those instruments. Further, more detailed informa-
of 55% GHG emission reduction by 2030 and the tion on the described EU funds, including funding
climate neutrality by 2050, at least 30% of the 2021- rates, conditions for applications, payment modali-
2027 budget of the EU will be spent on fighting ties, award criteria, are available through the Hydro-
climate change, which represents the highest share gen Public Funding Compass.69
ever. As a result, a large number of EU funding in-
struments can support hydrogen projects along the First presented at the European Hydrogen Forum
entire value chain - ranging from the production of 2021, the Hydrogen Public Funding Compass is an
renewable and low-carbon hydrogen to its trans- online guide designed to serve as an entry point to
mission and distribution and application in various access information on the most important EU fund-
sectors. ing programmes for renewables and low carbon
hydrogen. Prepared by the European Commission
The following sections briefly describe key EU funds and Hydrogen Europe, the tool covers EU funding
available in the current Multiannual Financial Frame- programmes and funds financed by the 2021-2027
work, indicating what type of hydrogen-related long-term EU budget and NextGenerationEU and
investments could potentially be funded through national funding programmes and funds available at
the EU country level.
Figure 62 Overview of EU energy transition funds available for the 2021-2027 period.
69
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/hydrogen/funding-guide/eu-programmes-funds_en
The guide is a ‘work in progress’ by nature since, at ing from funded projects make the Innovation Fund
the time of writing, upcoming programmes and calls unsuitable for pure research projects. For similar rea-
for proposal could not be included yet. It is intended sons, pilot projects, unless large scale and expected
for regular updates, with frequency still to be decid- to operate for a 10-year timeframe, are also not a
ed according to the timeline when new Programmes good fit for the fund. Some flexibility might be al-
specifically concerning the renewable and low car- lowed for small-scale projects.
bon hydrogen value chain will be adopted.
In future, the Innovation Fund is expected to also
Access to the Hydrogen Public Funding Compass is include support in the form of a carbon contract for
available at the following link. difference type instruments.
6.1.1 ETS INNOVATION FUND 6.1.2 HORIZON EUROPE AND CLEAN

HYDROGEN JU
The Innovation The Innovation Fund is one of the world’s largest
Fund is one funding programmes for the demonstration of in- Horizon Europe can support a wide range of hydro-
of the world’s novative low-carbon technologies, including hydrogen RDI activities:
largest funding gen, accelerating their introduction to the market. ∙ Research and innovation projects (including
programmes basic and applied research, technology devel-
for the As the fund budget is related to revenues from the opment and integration, testing, demonstra-
demonstration ETS, at current carbon emission allowances prices, tion, and validation on a small-scale prototype
of innovative the Innovation Funds budget is already at a sizeable in a laboratory or simulated environment)
low-carbon EUR 20 billion – to be spent until 2030. With the ∙ Innovation actions (including prototyping, test-
technologies, initial proposals included in the Fit-for-55 package ing, demonstrating, piloting, large-scale prod-
including Innovation Fund might be further reinforced in the uct validation and market replication)
hydrogen, coming years. ∙ Innovation and market deployment (activities
accelerating their necessary to deploy innovation in the market,
introduction to The fund is open to projects for breakthrough tech- including the scaling-up of companies)
the market. nologies for all energy-intensive industry sectors
covered by Annexe I to the EU ETS Directive, includ- The cluster ‘Climate, energy and mobility” of Pillar
ing products substituting carbon-intensive ones, II is relevant for hydrogen activities, especially the
renewable energy, energy storage, carbon capture dedicated Public-Private Partnership Clean Hydro-
and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilisa- gen for Europe. In addition, the Environmental in-
tion (CCU). Furthermore, for renewable energy and vestment centre (EIC) support for the deployment
energy storage project categories, the fund could of innovative solutions in Pillar III and other clusters,
support not only projects deployment but also inno- PPPs and Missions of Pillar II, and the research in-
vative projects involving equipment manufacturing frastructure programme in Pillar I may provide addi-
– making it possible to fund hydrogen applications tional opportunities for hydrogen RDI activities.
production and applications in various sectors and
potentially electrolyser manufacturing projects. The Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (succes-
sor to the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertak-
As the fund allows for a high degree of flexibility ing) can finance research and innovation projects,
as to how to define project boundaries, hydrogen innovation actions and innovation and market de-
transmission and distribution projects could be ployment, relating to the different parts of the
funded as well either indirectly or even directly, as- hydrogen value chain:
suming they are integrated within a larger produc- ∙ Clean hydrogen production. E.g., electrolysis
tion or end-use project, which would generate GHG and other modes of production, integration of
emission savings (which a standalone infrastructure electrolysis in the energy system, decarbonisa-
project would not). tion of industry.
Expected large scale GHG emission savings result- ∙ Distribution. E.g., Delivery of hydrogen at
low cost (large scale storage, pipeline and 6.1.3 MODERNISATION FUND
non-pipeline transport, liquid carriers, key
technologies for distribution) and hydrogen in- The Modernisation Fund (MF) is a dedicated funding
frastructure (HRS) development. programme to support ten lower-income EU Mem-
∙ End-uses. E.g., Competitive hydrogen vehicles ber States in their transition to climate neutrality
(building blocks, HDV, maritime/ports, aviation/ by helping modernise their energy systems and im-
airports, rail), Heat & power (stationary FC, tur- prove energy efficiency. It is recognised in the Euro-
bines & burners), Decarbonisation of industry. pean Green Deal Investment Plan as one of the key
funding instruments contributing to the objectives
The Clean Hydrogen JU also addresses R&I needs of the European Green Deal.
in the hydrogen supply chain (e.g., scale-up of man-
ufacturing), cross-cutting issues (ex: recycling, LCA, Looking from the hydrogen sector perspective, the
safety, et cetera) and the integration of ecosystems following activities could be funded via the MF as
combining multiple applications (hydrogen valleys). priority investments:
Other key partnerships launched under Horizon Eu- 1. Generation and use of electricity from renew-
rope and potentially interesting for hydrogen proj- able sources
ect funding are: a. Production of renewable hydrogen from re-
∙ The European Partnership for Clean Aviation; newable electricity;
∙ The European Partnership for transforming Eu- b. Use of hydrogen produced from renewable
rope’s rail system; electricity;
∙ Zero-emission waterborne transport; c Zero
. direct emission mobile assets based on
∙ Zero-emission road transport; renewables (e.g., electric hydrogen-fuelled
∙ Built4People; trains, trucks or cars).
∙ Clean steel – low-carbon steelmaking;
∙ Process4Planet. 2. Improvement of energy efficiency
a. High-efficiency hydrogen combined heat
and power (CHP) investments, provided a
share of electricity is cogenerated at high
efficiency on an annual basis;
b. Utilization of by-product hydrogen streams.
3. Energy storage:
a. Power-to-hydrogen projects with grid stabili-
zation purpose;
b. Flexible power generation for longer dark
doldrum periods;
c. Hybrid solutions for off-grid islands;
d. Back-up solutions / emergency systems;
e. Underground hydrogen storage;
f. Natural gas infrastructure projects to facili-
tate the use of low carbon/renewable hydro-
gen in an existing gas network;
g. Infrastructure for the transmission and distri-
bution of green hydrogen, including hydro-
gen refuelling stations.
Furthermore, the following types of investments through the JTF, the fund can support predomi-
could be funded as part of the non-priority enve- nantly renewable hydrogen production and use.
lope: Furthermore, to be eligible for funding, waste-to-hy-
1. Low carbon hydrogen production from waste drogen projects need to respect the waste hier-
feedstocks or gaseous fuels archy defined in the Waste Framework Directive
2. Hydrogen production from nuclear energy – i.e., the processed waste feedstock needs to be
3. New hydrogen district heating and cooling sys- either biodegradable and/or unrecyclable.
tems, bringing GHG emission savings and effi-
ciency improvements In the case of infrastructure projects, industry ap-
4. Renewable hydrogen heat only projects (not plication and energy roundtables, the fund allows
CHP). for the support of investments in the deployment
It should be noted that the above list is non-exhaus- of technology and systems and infrastructures for
tive and also not binding for the Member States affordable clean energy, including energy storage
– i.e. Member States cannot expand the scope of technologies, and GHG emission reduction.
eligible investments beyond what is allowed by the
MF Regulation but can always narrow it down to fit Both fleet deployment and refuelling infrastructure
with their National Climate and Energy Plans or oth- deployment projects are eligible for the mobility
er strategies. applications, provided they have a local character.
In order to ensure that investments will contribute For the investment archetypes defined by the
to 2030 climate objectives, investment proposals buildings roundtable, only district heating projects
Given a strong must comprise mature technology. In general, the are eligible if the heat production installations are
focus of the JTF proposed technologies must be proven in an oper- supplied exclusively by renewable energy sources.
both on climate ational environment under comparable conditions Investments in research and innovation activities,
change mitigation and scale and with available appropriate references. including universities and public research organisa-
and job creation, This excludes R&D type projects. tions, and fostering the transfer of advanced tech-
the Just Transition nologies are also eligible for funding.
Fund can be used 6.1.4 JUST TRANSITION FUND
to finance most It should be noted, though, that described scope
hydrogen project Just Transition Fund (JTF) was established to ad- of activities eligible for support from the JTF only
archetypes, dress the social, economic and environmental con- defines general eligibility rules; for a specific proj-
including key sequences of reaching the Union’s 2030 climate tar- ect to be eligible for the support, it has also to be
equipment get and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. part of the sectors and the types of operations en-
manufacturing visaged in the EC-approved, territorial just transi-
plants Given a strong focus of the JTF both on climate tion plan relevant for the region where the invest-
change mitigation and job creation, the Just Tran- ment is planned.
sition Fund can be used to finance most hydrogen
project archetypes, including key equipment man- 6.1.5 CONNECTING EUROPE
ufacturing plants. On the other hand, due to the FACILITY – TRANSPORT AND
strong focus on job creation and aid in energy transi- ENERGY
tion, the JTF is more suited to fund implementation
projects than pilot or demonstration projects, even The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) is a key EU
though the latter are not explicitly ruled out. funding instrument for targeted infrastructure in-
vestment at the European level. It supports the
More specifically, as Investments related to the pro- development of high performing, sustainable and
duction, processing, transport, distribution, stor- efficiently interconnected trans-European networks
age or combustion of fossil fuels cannot be funded in transport, energy and digital services.
CEF investments fill the missing links in Europe’s and innovative mobility solutions. These projects
energy, transport and digital backbone, and the fa- cover all EU Member States and all transport modes
cility is divided into three distinct instruments. The (road, rail, maritime, inland waterways, air) and sup-
revision of the CEF Regulation, which underpins this port transport co-modality, logistics, and innovation.
programme, is in the process of being finalised by Furthermore, it aims at supporting investments in
the European institutions and is expected to come building new transport infrastructure in Europe or
into force retroactively from 1 January 2021. rehabilitating and upgrading the existing one.
CEF for Energy (CEF-E) is an envelope of CEF that Because of a relatively low funding rate with a re-
supports the implementation of Trans-European quirement of blending with external private financ-
Networks for Energy Regulation (TEN-E), a policy ing, CEF-T is best suited for funding large scale,
framework focused on linking the energy infrastruc- mature hydrogen infrastructure projects, which are
ture of EU countries. Nine priority corridors and close to the market and have a low funding gap.
three priority thematic areas have been identified in
the TEN-E framework to address the energy infra- 6.1.6 EUROPEAN REGIONAL
structure needs at the regional and European levels. DEVELOPMENT FUND, COHESION
CEF supports implementing Projects of Common In- FUND AND REACT-EU
terest (PCIs) in these priority corridors and thematic
areas. Both ERDF and CF have specific targets of 30% and
37%, respectively, to support innovation and entre-
CEF-E is suited to demonstration projects, studies, preneurship in the transition to a climate-neutral
and co-financing of the development of energy in- economy70. This means that although hydrogen is
frastructure. As noted above, CEF-E is based on the not explicitly mentioned in the objectives or the key
TEN-E Regulation. However, the current status quo, priorities of the funds, each of those funds is poten-
namely the TEN-E Regulation from 2013, does not tially interesting for the hydrogen sector. t
recognise hydrogen infrastructure, electrolysers, or However, opportunities for funding hydrogen proj-
smart gas grids as eligible projects. However, it does ects will strongly depend on the Member States
recognise CO2 pipelines as eligible. The proposed and priorities identified in the national programmes.
revision of the TEN-E Regulation will, however, This means that hydrogen-related projects need
significantly change the PCI categories criteria. to be explored on a case-by-case basis, whether
The Commission’s proposal envisages supporting they could fit into the priorities of the relevant pro-
the roll-out of electrolysers, hydrogen infrastruc- grammes of the Member States or region where the
ture, and smart gas grids as separate PCI cate- potential beneficiary is located.
gories following negotiations once the other institu-
tions (EU Parliament and the Council) establish their 6.1.7 INVESTEU
respective positions towards 2021, with a political
agreement expect by early to mid-2022. InvestEU is composed of the InvestEU Fund, In-
vestEU Advisory Hub and InvestEU portal. The
The Connecting Europe Facility for Transport (CEF-T) instrument is expected to mobilise more than
is the funding instrument meant to realise the Euro- €372 billion of public and private investment
pean transport infrastructure policy. The instrument through an EU budget guarantee of €26.2 billion.
contributes to implementing the Trans-European It is centrally managed by the Commission, with EIB
Transport Network (TEN-T) framework by financing acting as its main financial partner, expected to de-
key projects to upgrade infrastructure and remove liver on 75% of the EU guarantee.
existing bottlenecks whilst promoting sustainable
70
REACT-EU is providing additional funds to ERDF and has therefore the same objectives.
Investment in clean hydrogen is part of the main LIFE is not meant to support large infrastructure con-
policy priority under the Sustainable Infrastruc- struction (over EUR 500k).
ture window.
InvestEU could provide repayable support for proj-

ects targeting the use of low-carbon hydrogen, pro-
duction and supply (at commercial scale) and on-site
storage to develop the energy sector and the de-
ployment of low carbon technologies. Support may
also be given for the deployment for all modes of
transport of recharging and refuelling infrastructure
for electricity, hydrogen and liquefied or compressed
natural gas blended highly with bio-methane
(>50 %). Investments in infrastructure supporting the Investments in
production or use of hydrogen are considered criti- infrastructure supporting
cal infrastructure under the InvestEU Fund.
the production or use of
For further details on the type of projects that might hydrogen are considered
receive funding from InvestEU, you can consult the critical infrastructure under
policy window section of the InvestEU investment
guidelines.71
the InvestEU Fund
6.1.8 LIFE
The new LIFE programme will be divided into four

sub-programmes, out of which climate change and
mitigation and clean energy transition sub-pro-
grammes will be available to fund hydrogen-related
projects.
LIFE programme’s sub-programme on clean en-

ergy transition will be based around the following
areas of intervention: building a national, regional
and local policy framework supporting the clean
energy transition; accelerating technology roll-out,
digitalisation, new services and business models
and enhancement of the related professional skills
on the market; attracting private finance for sustain-
able energy; supporting the development of local
and regional investment projects, and involving and
empowering citizens in the clean energy transition.
The Programme is suited for small demonstration
projects and governance projects and projects by
acting as a catalyst for large-scale deployments of
technical and policy solutions. On the other hand,
71
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/hydrogen/funding-guide/investeu_en
6.2 RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE

FACILITY AND NATIONAL PLANS
This section analyses the Recovery and Resilience In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the Eu-
Facility (RRF) and national recovery plans (RRPs) ropean Union created the Recovery and Resilience
presented by the EU countries to repair damages Facility to help Member States repair economic and
from the pandemic. It provides an overview of the social damages by financially supporting invest-
instrument; and the plans of allocations to hydrogen ments and reforms. The RRF, designed to boost the
- including a breakdown of the allocations along the recovery of Member States post-COVID, is at the
hydrogen value chain – at both the EU and Member centre of the NextGenerationEU, the largest stim-
States level; it presents the targets and deadlines as- ulus package ever implemented in Europe. Aiming
sociated with the plans. Several countries, including at a sustainable recovery, the temporary instrument
those with the highest planned investments in hy- makes available 672.5 billion euros in grants and
drogen technology, are analysed in more detail. The loans. Importantly, it mandates that at least 37%
Figure 1: Total Value of the Plans (in bn EUR)

chapter concludes with remarks of and a glimpse
into the future of hydrogen in the EU.
of the total allocation should be dedicated to the
“green” transition72.
Figure 63 Total Funds Distribution in RRPs (in billion EUR)
Above 50 bn
10 – 50 bn
5 - 10 bn
1 – 5 bn
Below 1 bn 5.7 bn
Not included in the analysis 3.2 bn
0.98 bn
1.8 bn
1.5 bn 2.2 bn
0.99
bn
36 bn
5.9 bn 27.9 bn
7.4 bn
0.18 bn 6.5 bn
4.4 bn 7.9 bn
100 bn 29.2 bn
2.5 bn 6.3 bn
235.1
bn
6.9 bn
16.6 bn
69.5 bn
31.1
bn
1.2 bn
0.31 bn
Source: Hydrogen Europe (Malta)
72
Contributions to the “green transition” are “(...) reforms and investments in green technologies and capacities, including in biodiversity, energy efficiency, building
renovation and the circular economy, while contributing to the Union’s climate targets, fostering sustainable growth, creating jobs and preserving energy security”, as in
paragraph 11 of the Regulation, 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021. For more details of the components that contribute to
the “green transition” please see Annexe VI of the Regulation.
To access the funds, Member States must submit The plans are structured along with so-called “flag-
draft Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) to the ship areas” for investment and reforms. Among
European Commission, which must specify the in- these, the areas “Power up” [of technologies and
vestments, reforms and targets they aim to achieve. renewables] and” Recharge and Refuel” [of sustain-
After submission, the Commission assesses the able transport and charging stations] are, in particu-
plans and, once the Commissions’ concerns and lar, very closely linked with the Commission’s priori-
comments are addressed, it submits them to the Eu- ties to promote a climate-neutral Europe.
ropean Council for approval.
As hydrogen is an essential part of the net-zero
When analysing data for this report (August – Sep- emission energy system, they also have a particu-
tember 2021), the Commission endorsed 18 of the larly close relationship with the European Hydrogen
25 plans formally submitted to it. The two countries Strategy74 and the European Clean Hydrogen Alli-
that did not submit a plan are Bulgaria and the Neth- ance, which aim to support the same goal. Box 2
erlands73. Considering all formally submitted and shows the Commission’s hydrogen-related targets
draft plans -, the total RRF funds mobilised for the by 2030.
recovery in each country range from - 93.3 million
(Luxembourg) to 191.5 billion euros (Italy) -, to be As a result of this close link, Member States have,
spent between 2021-2026. Suppose one considers as expected, included hydrogen investments in their
national investments triggered by the plans and oth- recovery and resilience plans, investments that this
er public funds, both national and from EU sources chapter closely analyses.
other than the RRF but included in the plans them-
selves. In that case, the total value of the recovery Please note that the following analysis of hydrogen
plans ranges from 183.1 million (Luxembourg) to investments in RRPs is based on all plans published
over 235.1 billion euros (Italy). Belgium, Bulgaria up to this date (August-September 2021). It includes
and Greece also plan investments funded with pri- final plans - as adopted - plans that were officially
vate resources – increasing their plans to 9.6, 10.3 submitted but not yet adopted and the Bulgarian
and 90.9 billion euros, respectively. Figure 63 illus- draft as was published on 2 July 2021. The Neth-
trates the distribution of the total funds from the erlands did not publish a draft of the plan yet. Be
RRPs, including all public funds included in the RRPs aware that plans which have not been formally final-
presented by each Member State. ised and adopted might undergo significant chang-
es (see Figure 64). The analysis also includes funds
from both the Recovery and Resilience Facility and
national public funds and funds from other EU sourc-
es, when applicable75.
Box 2 The Commission´s Targets in the 2030 horizon
The Commission’s ambition is to ensure the installation of at least 6 GW

of electrolysers by 2025 and at least 40 GW of electrolysers in Europe,
in addition to 40 GW in Europe’s neighborhood with export to the EU by
2030. The strategy aims to secure the production of up to 1 million tonnes
of renewable hydrogen by 2025 and 10 million tonnes by 2030 in the
EU, as well as the deployment of 500 hydrogen stations by 2025 and 500
additional ones by 2030.
73
Bulgaria has a draft in preparation and the Netherlands did not publish a draft of the plan.
74
A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe, but see also the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2021.
75
Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Luxembourg include national public funds and funds from other EU sources additionally to
the RRF in their recovery plans.
In their plans, Member States take different ap- Another difference concerns the scope of invest-
proaches to allocate investments and structuring ments that are planned in hydrogen technologies:
their RRPs. This is also true for the planned invest- while some RRPs include robust plans containing in-
ments in hydrogen technologies. While some Mem- vestments in multiple parts of the value chain which
ber States73 present their plans with a high degree seek to develop hydrogen on many fronts (e.g., pro-
of granularity, from which it is possible to determine duction, distribution and end-use, in multiple sec-
the precise funds which are dedicated exclusive- tors), others focus on only specific parts of the value
ly to hydrogen technologies, others74 take a more chain.
general approach and provide only funding cate-
gories which encompass funding and investments Furthermore, while some RRPs include detailed tar-
for multiple technologies, among which hydrogen. gets and deadlines associated with investments in
In this analysis, both types of hydrogen-related al- hydrogen technologies (some of which contain a
locations are included. They are named ‘exclusive’ clear link to their respective national hydrogen strat-
and ‘non-exclusive’, respectively, to designate the egies), others, in contrast, present broader goals
allocation type presented by each Member State. without associated quantitative targets.
Please be aware that non-exclusive funds do not
contain proportions or indications of the specific
amount directed for hydrogen. Finally, a small num-
Figure 2: Scope Status

ber of Member States75 do not mention hydrogen at
all in their plans.
Figure 64 Status of Recovery and Resilience Plans, as of the moment of drafting
Members with adopted plans
Members with formally submitted but not adopted plans
Members with draft plans (not formally submitted)
Members with no draft published
73
Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Spain
74
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
75
Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden.
6.2.1 TOTAL ALLOCATIONS FOR Overall, France, Spain, Germany and Italy are the
HYDROGEN IN RECOVERY AND Member States with the largest absolute value of
RESILIENCE PLANS funds (both exclusive and non-exclusive) made
available for hydrogen, dedicating 14.3, 9.4, 7.9, 7.8
In total, the cumulative amount of funds available billion euros, respectively.
In total, the for hydrogen from all RRPs reaches over 54 billion
cumulative euros, of which 42 billion are allocated to categories Among the Member States which dedicate exclu-
amount of which include investments in multiple technologies sive funds to hydrogen, Italy and Germany lead
funds available among which hydrogen may be funded, as well as the ranking, dedicating 3.6 and 2.7 billion euros
for hydrogen 12 billion which are dedicated exclusively for hydro- respectively in investments exclusively to hydrogen
from all RRPs gen technologies. Figure 65 shows the distribution technology.
reaches over of total hydrogen funds (both exclusive and non-ex-
54 billion euros clusive) of 26 EU Members (EU 27 excl. The Neth- Among the Member States, which include hydro-
erlands). gen among broader categories involving multiple
technologies (non-exclusive funds), France, Spain
At the Member States level, the total funds for hy- and Germany lead the list allocating 12.3, 7.9 and
drogen in RRPs (both exclusive and non-exclusive) 5.2 billion euros respectively for hydrogen, along-
Figure 3: Total Hydrogen Allocations (in bn

range from roughly 5 million (Slovenia) euros to over side other technologies.
14 billion euros (France).76
Figure 66 illustrates the absolute amount and the
EUR) breakdown by allocation type of funds available for

hydrogen for all Member States. Figure 67 zooms in
Figure 65 Total Hydrogen Funds Distribution in RRPs (in billion EUR) on countries with less than 1 billion euros of funds
allocated to hydrogen.
Above 5 bn
1 – 5 bn
0.5 - 1 bn
0.1 – 0.5 bn
Below 0.1 bn 0.3 bn
No hydrogen allocations

0.05 bn
0.3 bn
0.2 bn 0.2 bn
0.8 bn
0.4 bn 7.9 bn
0.1 bn
1.2 bn
1.1 bn
0.2 bn 5.1 bn
14.3 bn
0.005 bn
0.1 bn
7.8 bn
0.1 bn
1.8 bn 9.4 bn
1.6 bn
0.09 bn
76
If one considers private investments as well, the total hydrogen funds of Greece reach over 2 billion euros.
When analysing hydrogen allocations in relative 28.6%. Not too far behind, Austria makes available
terms (i.e., as a share of the country RRP allocation 24.5% of its resources for hydrogen, followed by Lat-
Figure
Figure 4:
4: Breakdown
Breakdown of
of Hydrogen
Hydrogen Funds
Funds by
by Allo
– including both RRF funds, national public invest- via with 20.6%, Slovakia with 19.2%, Romania with
Allo
ments and funds from other EU sources), the ranking 17.7% and France with 14.4%.
looks different, with Germany appearing to be the
Member State with the highest relative allocation of
funds for hydrogen (both exclusive and non-exclu-
sive), comprising almost one-third of its resources -
Figure 66 Breakdown of Hydrogen Funds by Allocation Type (in billion EUR)
16B
16B
14B
14B
12B
12B
10B
10B
8B
8B
6B
6B
4B
4B
Figure 4: Breakdown of Hydrogen Funds by Allo

2B
2B
0B
Figure 5: Capture of the Breakdown

m m
Latvia
ia ia
Portugal
Hungary
Czechia
Malta
Slovakia
Finland
France
Romania
Denmark
Austria
Slovenia
Sweden
Bulgaria
ItalyItaly
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Ireland
Lithuania
Croatia
0B
Germany
Eston
Belgiu
Latvia
Portugal
Hungary
Czechia
Malta
Slovakia
Finland
France
Romania
Austria
Denmark
Sweden
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Greece
Cyprus
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Ireland
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Croatia
Germany
Eston
Belgiu
Exclusive Non-Exclusive
16B
Figure 67 Breakdown of Hydrogen Funds by Allocation Type (in million EUR)
14B
900M
12B
800M
700M
10B
600M
8B
500M
6B
400M
4B
300M
2B
200M
100M
0B
Bu Belgiu m
iaLatvia
ia
L i Portugal
Hungary
Sl Czechia
sMalta
un Slovakia
ec Finland
lanFrance
Fi Romania
Denmark
Austria
Slovenia
Ire Sweden
Es Bulgaria
tv Italy
m Cyprus
ua Greece
lg Spain
m Poland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Ireland
CrLithuania
enCroatia
Germany
0M
Eston
a
a
m
ry
ia
ta
ia
en
k
d
d
us
nd
g
tia
a
nd
ni
hi
ar
ni
an
ur
ar
al
ga
iu
pr
ed
oa
la
to
bo
La
M
lg
rla
nl
ov
Po
Cy
en
Sw
th
Cz
Be
he
H
xe
et
Lu
Source: Hydrogen Europe Exclusive Non-Exclusive

This shows that, while Western European countries

appear to have the highest allocations for hydrogen,
in relative terms, Central and Eastern countries are
also among the Member States with a strong focus
on hydrogen investments. Figure 68 shows the share
of total hydrogen funds in relation to the total funds
in the RRPs.
The upcoming section zooms in on the allocation of

investments and the various parts of the hydrogen
value chain at both the EU-level and national level,
detailing some of the most ambitious targets and
plans for hydrogen presented in the recovery plans.
Figure 6: Relative Hydrogen Allocations to the

Funds in the Plan
Figure 68 Total Hydrogen Funds Relatively to the Total Funds in the RRPs (%)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Belgiu m
Hungary
Czechia
Latvia
Eston ia
Portugal
France
Malta
Denmark
Slovenia
Sweden
Slovakia
Cyprus
Ireland
Romania
Austria
Bulgaria
Italy
Greece
Spain
Lithuania
Poland
Netherlands
Croatia
Luxembourg
Finland
Germany
Relative hydrogen allocations to the total funds in the plan

6.2.2 RRP ALLOCATIONS ALONG vestments in electrolysis capacity to produce

THE HYDROGEN VALUE CHAIN renewable hydrogen for the specific consump-
tion in the chemical industry and other ‘hard-
Building a hydrogen market requires investments to to-abate’ sectors) and in the energy sector
be made along the entire value chain, including in: (e.g., developing energy storage facilities and
(i) production of hydrogen (specifically, hydro- applications in the electricity system).
gen production that does not aim at any spe-
cific application or end-use – includes invest- Furthermore, future development requires invest-
ments in electrolysers and other technologies ments in (iv) research and development – aiming
to produce it and increase installed production at future innovative production and consumption of
capacity), hydrogen in multiple sectors (e.g., includes invest-
(ii) in transmission and distribution – (i.e., ments in pilot projects to develop new production
infrastructure to transmit and distribute hy- technologies and hydrogen applications in sectors
drogen via pipelines and HRS to supply hy- that have a scarce hydrogen supply and consump-
drogen-powered transportation – includes tion, such as aviation).
investments in stations and pilot projects to as-
sist light and heavy vehicles on the road, trains Investments are also commonly grouped and pre-
and hydrogen distribution in ports to assist sented as funds dedicated to (v) multiple parts of
ships) –, as well as in the value chain (e.g., when a certain allocation is
(iii) multiple end-use sectors such as mobility planned for hydrogen production and further re-
(e.g., governmental incentives as tax exemp- search).
tions and financing schemes for the acquisition
of FCEVs and investments in complementary
refuelling stations77), in the industry (i.e., in-
Figure 69 Total Hydrogen Funds Allocation per Part of the Value Chain
Mobility
1% 3%
Multiple parts of the chain 5%
Research
8%
Industry
Energy
54bn 16%
49%
Transmission and Distribution
Production

18%
77
Hydrogen refueling stations are mostly going to be found in the category (II) transmission and distribution, however, Croatia and Germany also associate investments
in refueling infrastructure to the (iii) end-use mobility, to complement the mechanism of incentives for hydrogen-vehicles.
78
However, if when analyzing only hydrogen exclusive allocations, the allocation to hydrogen mobility represents only 4,5% of the total funds allocated exclusively to
hydrogen (see below).
79
Untargeted production refers to investments to produce hydrogen without aiming at any specific application or end-use, in contrast to e.g., producing hydrogen for
applications in industry.
EU-level analysis When looking only at funds dedicated exclusively

to hydrogen, the scenario is considerably differ-
When analysing RRPs investments from the perspec- ent. Figure 70 shows the share of exclusive hydro-
tive of the value chain, it can be observed that, at gen funds per part of the value chain.
the EU-level, most of the RRPs allocations relevant
to hydrogen (both exclusive and non-exclusive) Investments in multiple parts of the chain repre-
are destined to Mobility applications, representing sent over 50% of the total or around 6.2 billion
almost 50% of the total planned investments, or euros. Industrial applications and research follow,
26.7 billion euros78. Figure 69 illustrates the share each with roughly 17% of the total.
of total hydrogen relevant funds to each part of the
value chain. When considering exclusive allocations only, mo-
bility represents only around 4.5% of the invest-
Funds allocated to more than one part of the chain ments, similarly to allocations dedicated to both
are also common, representing around 18% of the the production and transmission and distribution
total. These investments could not be attributed to parts of the chain. There are no funds dedicated
only one specific part of the value chain as they aim exclusively to the development of hydrogen for
to enable a broader strategy to develop hydrogen energy applications.
on multiple fronts.
Member State-level comparison
Allocations to Research account for 16% of the in-
vestments, followed by industrial and energy appli- Analysing Member States’ Total allocations that
cations that represent less than 10% of the funds. also may include hydrogen (i.e., exclusive and
An even smaller share of investments is allocated ex- non-exclusive funds) from a value chain perspec-
clusively to hydrogen transmission and distribution tive, it can be observed that:
and (untargeted)79 hydrogen production. Together ∙ Italy has the largest exclusive allocation for
they constitute almost 4% of the total. production, investing 500 million euros in
Figure 70 Exclusive Hydrogen Funds Allocations per Part of the Value Chain
Multiple parts of the chain
0% 4%
Research 5%
5%
Industry
Mobility
17%
12bn
52%
Production
Energy
17%
hydrogen production in no longer used indus- ∙ In terms of research, France is planning to in-
trial areas, followed by Slovakia with 62 million. vest 5.5 billion, which is written to include the
∙ Italy is also the Member that most invests in development of hydrogen as a fuel for appli-
transmission and distribution with 530 million cations in transportation and the space sector.
euros, essentially for light vehicles refuelling Italy comes next with 1.1 billion planned in-
stations and pilot projects to construct stations vestments in research, including a dimension
in road corridors and rail lines to assist hydro- comprising hydrogen production, transmission
gen-powered heavy trucks and rail transporta- and distribution, development of technologies
tion. Romania and France follow with respec- for industrial needs, mobility applications (e.g.,
tively 400 and 200 million. fuel cells for trucks) and storage.
∙ Italians also have the highest allocation for
industrial applications, aiming to implement Figure 72 shows an overview for a selection of coun-
renewable hydrogen in ‘hard-to-abate’ sectors tries (i.e., those with high total allocations, both ex-
through RRP investments totalling 2 billion eu- clusive and non-exclusive) along each part of the
ros. In this category, Italy is followed by Ger- hydrogen value chain.
many, which plans to invest 999 million in the
industrial end-use of hydrogen. At least half of the Member States include funding
∙ In energy applications, Spain is the country allocations that are already planned to involve more
that most invests in this part of the value chain, than one part of the value chain; therefore, it has
with around 1.3 billion euros allocated for elec- not been possible to accurately attribute these al-
tricity storage. locations to a particular part of the hydrogen value
Figure 9: Intensive investments by parts of the

hydrogen value chain (Total H2 funds)
Figure 72 v
Allocations to different parts of the value chain (selection)80 (in EUR)
4.7 bn for Mobility

200 mn for Transmission and Dist. 999 mn for Industry
6.6 bn for Mobility
5.5 bn for Research
62 mn for Production
6.5 bn for Mobility

1.3 bn for Energy
400 mn for Transmission and Dist.
500 mn for Production

530 mn for Transmission and Dist.
3.6 bn for Mobility
2 bn for Industry
1.1 bn for Research
Members with intensive investments by parts of the hydrogen value chain

Members with intensive investments in multiple parts of the hydrogen chain
8
80
This selection only includes investments in the 25th percentile of the distribution of each hydrogen value chain category, that is, after analysing the distribution of
hydrogen-related funds in each category of the chain, the 25% largest investments in each category of the chain were selected and presented in the figure.
chain. France, for example, has an investment cat- 6.2.3 TARGETS AND DEADLINES
egory of 2 billion euros dedicated to Production, ASSOCIATED WITH RRP
Mobility, Industry and Research in hydrogen. Spain INVESTMENTS IN HYDROGEN
and Germany also make investments planned to en- TECHNOLOGIES
compass multiple parts of the value chain of around
1.5 billion each, as does Austria, with 1.1 billion. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, not
all countries associate their planned investments in
The allocations of France and Germany include a to- hydrogen with clear targets and deadlines. When
tal of around 3 billion euros for the implementation they do, the targets are often embedded in national
of Important Projects of Common European Interest hydrogen strategies (e.g., the production targets of
(IPCEI), which apply to multiple parts of the value France, Germany, Italy and Spain). In such cases, the
chain, as do the 1.5 billion allocated by Spain with RRPs funds contribute to the financing of the targets
the purpose to support the implementation of the under the national strategies.
Spanish national hydrogen strategy (which includes,
except for Transmission and Distribution, all parts of When an association between the planned alloca-
the value chain). Figure 73 illustrates an overview of tions and specific targets and deadlines is made, it
the largest investments (exclusive and non-exclu- is most often in relation to the Production, Transmis-
sive) in multiple parts of the hydrogen chain (i.e., sion and Distribution, and Mobility parts of the value
those that could not have been attributed to a single chain.
part of the value chain).
Figure 10: Intensive investments in multiple parts of
the hydrogen value chain (Total H2 funds)
Figure 73 Allocations that could not be attributed to a single part of the value chain (selection)81 (in EUR)
1.5 bn for Prod. + Transmission

2 bn for Prod. + Mobility + Industry and Dist.
+ Research
1.1 bn for Prod. + Transmission

1.5 bn for Prod. + Mobility + and Dist. + Mobility + Industry +
Industry + Energy + Research Energy

81
Investments in the 25th percentile of the distribution of the hydrogen value chain category, that is, after analysing the distribution of hydrogen-related funds that could
not be attributed to a single category of the chain, the 25% largest investments were selected and presented in the figure.
Regarding production capacity of renewable hy- 6.2.4 A CLOSER LOOK AT THE MOST
drogen, France, Germany, Italy and Spain set them- AMBITIOUS PLANS
selves ambitious targets of 6.5 GW, 5 GW, 5 GW
and 4 GW by 2030, respectively. These targets are Overall, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Romania
financed by both the RRP and by funds associated are the Member States with the highest allocations
with the national hydrogen strategies. Slovakia tar- (in absolute terms) to hydrogen in their respective
gets 20 MW of electrolysis capacity to be installed RRPs. The upcoming section takes a closer look at
by 2026. Portugal targets up to 2.5 GW of installed the RRPs of each of these countries. It highlights the
electrolysis capacity by 2030. main figures, provides an overview of all the funds
available for hydrogen, details the largest exclusive
Concerning concrete targets associated with allo- and non-exclusive investments, the targets, con-
cating funds to hydrogen transmission and distri- nections to national strategies and gives a glimpse
bution, Italy, the largest investor in this part of the of the future course of the hydrogen value chain in
chain, sets a target to build 40 hydrogen refuelling each country.
stations to assist heavy trucks. Slovakia also stands
out by aiming to construct at least 3,029 charging
and hydrogen refuelling stations by 2026, of which it
is not clear precisely how many hydrogen refuelling
stations. The country, however, has currently no fill-
ing stations for hydrogen-powered vehicles. Among
the countries with the highest allocations towards
mobility applications, Spain intends to promote at
least 5,000-7,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles, in
addition to 150-200 fuel cell buses. Germany has
measures to support 560,000 electric vehicles by
2022, 4,000 purely electric vehicles by 2024, 2,800
alternative-drive buses and 280 trains, all including –
among others - hydrogen-powered technologies. In
its turn, Italy intends to promote 3,360 low-emission
buses and 53 trains by 2026, including – among oth-
ers - hydrogen-powered technologies.
France, Germany, Italy,
Spain and Romania are
the Member States with
the highest allocations
(in absolute terms) to
hydrogen in their
respective RRPs
FRANCE
Box 3 Highlights of the French Recovery and Resilience Plan
• 14.3 bn for investments that also include hydrogen - the highest

non-exclusive allocation among the plans
• 2 bn exclusively to hydrogen technologies in multiple parts of the
chain – of which 1.5 bn are directed to IPCEI projects
• 6.6 bn for Mobility applications and 5.5 bn for Research
• 6.5 GW of renewable hydrogen production by 2030 supported by
the RRP
• Mobilisation of additional 5 bn EUR by 2030 to boost the hydrogen
acceleration plan
France makes available (both exclusively and non-ex- Mobility and Research but also include, except for
clusively) over 14.3 billion euros which can be used, energy applications, investments in all parts of the
among other technologies, for hydrogen. This rep- value chain. Hydrogen allocations in the plan aim to
resents 14.4% of the total amount of the plan. Out of support the 6.5 GW target of renewable hydrogen
the 14 billion available, 2 billion euros are dedicated production capacity in the country by 2030, an ad-
exclusively to hydrogen technologies, and the rest ditional 5 billion euros will be mobilised by 2030 to
(over 12 billion euros) are non-exclusive (meaning support hydrogen development (see below).
they encompass categories that aim to fund multiple
technologies, including hydrogen). Overall, relevant Figure 74 presents the share of investments per part
planned investments are strongly aimed towards of the value chain planned in the French recovery
plan.
Figure 74 Share of Investments per Part of the Value Chain (relevant funds) - France
0% (0.2 bn)
14% (2 bn)
Mobility
Research
14.3bn
Multiple parts of the chain 46% (6.6 bn)
39% (5.5 bn)
82
The plan does not specify how much of these funds, precisely, will be dedicated to electrification and hydrogen trains for non-
electrified lines respectively.
The main investments 4.7 billion to improve and modernize the rail sector
in France by upgrading the infrastructure and quality
Investments dedicated exclusively to hydro- of the services, including hydrogen equipment for
gen technologies (amounting to 2 billion euros) some of the lines82. The remaining 1.9 billion euros
are largely destined for hydrogen IPCEI projects are to be used to purchase clean vehicles, includ-
(1.5 billion). Bearing in mind the challenges to de- ing FCEVs, provided as an ‘ecological bonus’. The
velop ‘carbon-free’ hydrogen in the country, France funds include both support for heavy and light-duty
aims at improving the competitive gap of hydrogen vehicles for both private use and corporations. How-
produced by electrolysis, arising mainly from the ever, the ‘ecological bonus’ for light vehicles will be
cost to acquire electricity, against that of hydrogen gradually decreased as the competitive position of
produced from steam methane reforming. The 2 bil- clean vehicles improves in relation to conventional
lion euros allocated are meant to support electrol- vehicles. The amount will be spent on the already
yser producers to gain market visibility and reduce ongoing measures up until 2022.
the unitary cost of electrolysers. By developing ‘car-
bon-free’ hydrogen, France states in its plan that it The 5.2 billion euros of the investments in Research
intends to promote the decarbonisation of industry are dedicated, among other things, to developing
and heavy mobility with hydrogen-powered vehicles sustainable fuels for applications in transportation,
and other hydrogen solutions. The financing of elec- aiming at projects finishing up until 2026.
trolysers and installations to decarbonise industrial
sites will happen through calls for tenders. France Targets and deadlines
also intends to promote the integration of the hy-
drogen value chain at the European level, includ- France sets clear production goals for clean hy-
ing the launch of a priority research program (PRR) drogen, intending to achieve 6.5 GW of capacity
named “Hydrogen Applications”. to produce renewable hydrogen by 2030. Aiming
at contributing to this goal, the RRP funds target a
The 1.5 billion euros dedicated for IPCEI projects 140 MW per year in electrolysers installed by 2026,
aim to support the research and design, industri- 12,000 tonnes of Hydrogen produced by 2023 and
alization (e.g., investing in electrolysers, fuel cells, cumulative 100,000 tonnes by 2026.
tanks and materials), and, alongside the PRR men-
tioned above, the integration of the hydrogen value To sum up
chain at the European level.
In sum, the French recovery funds for hydrogen
The 2 billion exclusive allocations to hydrogen will are linked to the ‘carbon-free hydrogen strategy’
be used between 2021-2022, and the projects aim approved in September 2020 and running up until
to be implemented mainly by 2023. The investments 2030. Even though allocating funds towards multi-
in the hydrogen chain are part of the national strat- ple parts of the hydrogen value chain (including in
egy to accelerate hydrogen, and the plan mentions comprehensive hydrogen IPCEIs), in the next few
that an additional 5 billion euros will be mobilised by years, the country appears to concentrate its hydro-
2030 to boost hydrogen development further. gen recovery funds on research laboratories and on
industry applications, fostering innovation to create
Within the category of non-exclusive hydrogen a competitive advantage of renewable and low-car-
funds, 6.6 billion euros represent investments in bon hydrogen.
clean Mobility (this amounts to 46% of the total funds
that could potentially be used to support hydrogen
technologies). The allocation for Mobility includes
GERMANY
Box 4 Highlights of the German Recovery and Resilience Plan
• 7.9 bn for investments that also include hydrogen - or 28.6% of the

total plan - the highest relative allocation among the plans
• 2.7 bn exclusively to hydrogen technologies in different parts of the
chain - of which 1.5 bn are directed to IPCEI projects
• 4.7 bn for Mobility applications
• 5 GW of renewable hydrogen production by 2030 supported by the
RRP – 500 MW for industrial needs
Germany makes available (both exclusively and Overall, relevant planned investments are strongly
non-exclusively) over 7.9 billion euros for invest- aimed towards mobility and include in other parts
ments, including hydrogen, representing 28.6% of of the value chain. Hydrogen allocations in the plan
the total amount of the plan, the most ambitious aim to support the 5 GW target of renewable hydro-
investor in relative terms. Out of the 7.9 billion avail- gen in the country by 2030 and specifically 500 MW
able, 2.7 billion euros are dedicated exclusively to of capacity for industrial needs (see below).
hydrogen technologies, and the remaining 5.2 bil-
lion encompass other technologies.
Figure 75 Share of Investments per Part of the Value Chain (Total relevant funds) - Germany
10% (0.7 bn)
Mobility
12% (0.9 bn)

Industry
7.9bn
59% (4.7 bn)
Research
19% (1.5 bn)

The main investments Targets and deadlines
Within the category of exclusive investments in hy- Germany has clear renewable hydrogen production
drogen, 1.5 billion euros represent investments in goals, intending to achieve 5 GW of production ca-
IPCEI projects. Aiming at decreasing the marginal pacity by 2030. The RRPs funds aim to contribute to
costs of producing renewable hydrogen and im- this goal and achieve 500 MW of renewable hydro-
proving the German and European networks, to cre- gen capacity for industrial needs.
ate a comprehensive cross-border hydrogen supply
network, the investment intends to support both the Other quantitative targets include support for
production of electrolysers, hydrogen conversion, 560,000 electric vehicles by 2022, 2,800 alterna-
transportation, storage and the deployment of re- tive-drive buses and 280 trains, all including, among
fuelling stations. By developing a supply network, others, hydrogen-powered technologies.
Germany intends to expand the regionally limited
hydrogen infrastructure. The plan mentions that To sum up
small/medium-sized companies will receive special
attention. The investments will be made gradually In sum, the German recovery plan is linked to the
from 2022-2026 and are in line with the ‘German Na- ’German National Hydrogen Strategy’ announced
tional Hydrogen Strategy’ (NWS). in June 2020 and setting goals for 2030. Overall,
in the next few years, the country will concentrate
Among the investments dedicated to hydrogen and its hydrogen recovery funds to develop a hydrogen
other technologies, 4.1 billion euros are directed to supply network in cross-border projects (compre-
Mobility applications. To reduce emissions in the hensive hydrogen IPCEIs) and mobility applications
transport sector by increasing the competitiveness to reduce emissions in the sector by stimulating de-
of clean vehicles concerning combustion engines, mand and infrastructure to support the use of hydro-
the funds support the acquisition of buses and rail gen. In addition, Germany has planned investments
transportation with alternative drives and electric in industrial applications to decarbonise the sector.
vehicles powered by fuel cell technology or other
drives. It also includes an extension of the tax ex-
emption for zero-emission vehicles of all classes. All
funds will be spent by 2025. Germany also makes
available around half a billion euros exclusively to
hydrogen in Mobility applications - similarly to be
spent until 2025. The latter supports stimulating
the demand for hydrogen-powered vehicles, fuel
cell applications in traffic and refuelling stations to
promote hydrogen supply - in line with Germany’s
national hydrogen strategy.
ITALY
Box 5 Highlights of the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan
• 7.8 bn for investments that also include hydrogen

• 3.6 bn exclusively to hydrogen technologies in different parts of the
chain – the highest exclusive allocation among the plans
• 3.6 bn for Mobility applications and 2 bn for Industry
• 5 GW of renewable hydrogen production by 2030 supported by the
RRP
Italy makes available (both exclusively and non-except for Energy, in all parts of the value chain. Hy-
clusively) over 7.8 billion euros for technologies, drogen allocations in the plan aim to support the 5
including hydrogen, representing 3.3% of the total GW target of renewable hydrogen in the country by
amount of the plan. Out of the 7.8 billion available, 2030 (see below).
around 3.6 billion are dedicated exclusively to hy-
drogen technologies, and 4.1 billion encompass Figure 76 presents the share of investments per part
other technologies as well as hydrogen. Overall, the of the value chain planned in the Italian recovery
relevant planned investments are aimed towards plan.
Mobility and Industry and include investments, ex-
Figure 76 Share of Investments per Part of the Value Chain (Total relevant funds) - Italy
6% (0.5 bn)
Mobility 7% (0.5 bn)
Industry
Research 46% (3.6 bn) 15% (1.1 bn)

7.8bn
Production
26% (2 bn)

The main investments Italy has clear production goals, aiming at a 5 GW

total electrolysis capacity by 2030. The RRP funds
Within the category of exclusive investments in hy- aim to contribute to this goal. Other quantitative tar-
drogen technologies, 2 billion euros are dedicat- gets laid out within the RRP include the construction
ed for the decarbonisation of ‘hard-to-abate’ sec- of around 40 hydrogen refuelling stations to assist
tors (e.g., chemicals and petroleum refining) that heavy trucks, purchasing 3,360 low-emission buses
are highly intense in energy and have no scalable and 53 trains by 2026.
electrification options. The investments intend to
increase renewable hydrogen consumption in the To sum up
industrial sector by promoting the transition away
from “grey” hydrogen, already produced locally and The Italian recovery plan is also in line with the ‘Na-
used to produce basic chemicals (e.g., ammonia tional Hydrogen Strategy Preliminary Guidelines’
and methanol) and refining processes. Other ‘hard- published in 2020 and setting goals up to 2030.
to-abate’ sectors targeted include steel83, concrete, It aims to support the development of a hydrogen
glass and paper. economy in the country and to achieve decarboni-
sation goals. Even though Italy makes investments
Within the category of non-exclusive funds, in multiple parts of the chain, in the next few years,
3.6 billion euros are directed to Mobility applica- it will concentrate the hydrogen recovery funds in
tions. The investment is aimed to renew bus fleets industrial applications by shifting the consumption
and to purchase “green” trains in Italy, introduc- from “grey” to renewable hydrogen in industry and
ing low environmental impact vehicles, including - investing in hydrogen-based technologies as pro-
among others - hydrogen propulsion technologies moting low-emission public transportation.
and necessary infrastructure. It also aims at accel-
erating the ‘National Strategic Plan for Sustainable
Mobility’ launched in 2017. Around one-third of the
funds will be directed to the main Italian cities.
Italy also allocates 1.1 billion in research that in-

cludes, among other things, the development of
hydrogen-related technologies for mobility applica-
tions (e.g., fuel cells for trucks and hydrogen trans-
formation into green fuels).
Targets and deadlines
83
Italy is the second largest producer in Europe.
SPAIN
Box 6 Highlights of the Spanish Recovery and Resilience Plan

• 1.5 bn exclusively to hydrogen technologies in multiple parts of the
chain
• 6.5 bn for Mobility applications
• 4 GW of renewable hydrogen production by 2030 + 5,000-
7,000 light and heavy hydrogen vehicles supported by the RRP
Spain makes available (both exclusively and non-ex- except for Transmission and Distribution. Hydrogen
clusively) over 9.4 billion euros for investments that allocations in the plan aim to support the 4 GW tar-
include hydrogen. This corresponds to 13.6% of the get of renewable hydrogen in the country by 2030
total amount of the plan, the second-most ambi- (see below).
tious investor in absolute terms. Out of the 9.4 bil-
lion available, 1.5 billion are dedicated exclusively to Figure 77 presents the share of investments per part
hydrogen technologies, and 7.9 billion encompass of the value chain planned in the Spanish recovery
other technologies alongside hydrogen. Overall, plan.
the relevant planned investments are strongly aimed
towards mobility and include all parts of the chain
Figure 77 Investments per Part of the Value Chain (Total relevant funds) - Spain
14% (1.3 bn)
Mobility
Energy 9.4bn 17% (1.5 bn)
69% (6.5 bn)

The main investments hydrogen fuel cell buses and achieving a minimal
contribution of 25% of renewable hydrogen out of
Investments dedicated exclusively to hydrogen the total amount of hydrogen consumed in all indus-
technologies (amounting to 1.5 billion euros) are tries, as a raw material and energy source.
directed to renewable hydrogen projects in multi-
ple parts of the hydrogen chain. Aiming at replac- To sum up
ing certain fuels and decarbonising several sectors
in which renewable electricity or direct replacement In sum, the Spanish recovery plan is set in line with
by renewables is not feasible. The support intends the Spanish ‘Renewable Hydrogen Roadmap’ ap-
to tackle the difference in costs of hydrogen in com- proved in 2020 and setting goals for 2030. Even
parison to other fuels. The projects include the cre- though Spain makes investments in several hydro-
ation of technological clusters and pilot projects on gen applications and multiple parts of the chain, in
a regional scale, industrial innovation, fair transition the short term, recovery funds will be concentrated
zones and competitive renewable energy, as well on Mobility applications aimed at making the public
as regulations and incentives encompassing large- transportation system more sustainable, including
scale production, transformation and hydrogen use through the use of FCEVs.
in heavy long-distance transportation, as energy
storage, in high-temperature processes and hydro-
gen-intensive industries.
Within the category of non-exclusive funds,

6.5 billion euros are directed to Mobility applications
to decarbonise urban and metropolitan transporta-
tion. The investment intends to transform the public
transportation sector into a sustainable alternative
to private vehicles by utilising low-emission fleets.
The allocation includes support for the acquisition
of fuel cell vehicles and promoting renewable hydro-
gen for mobility uses. It will focus on cities with over
50,000 inhabitants.
Targets and deadlines
Spain sets clear goals for production and mobility

applications to be also supported by RRP funds. It
aims at 4 GW of installed electrolysers by 2030, as
well as the promotion of at least 5,000-7,000 light
and heavy hydrogen-powered vehicles, 150-200
Romania
Box 7 Highlights of the Romanian Recovery and Resilience Plan

• 713 mn exclusively to the Research of hydrogen technologies
• 3 bn for Mobility applications
• 1,000 minibuses and 600 buses potentially powered by hydrogen
financed by the RRP
Although still in its draft form, the Romanian RRP relevant planned investments are strongly aimed to-
makes available (both exclusively and non-exclusive- wards mobility and include investments in different
ly) over 5.1 billion euros for investments, including parts of the chain.
hydrogen or 17.7% of the total amount of the plan.
Figure 78 presents the share of investments per part
Out of the 5.1 billion available, 713 million are dedi-
of the value chain planned in the Romanian recovery
cated exclusively to hydrogen technologies, and 4.4
plan.
billion encompass other technologies. Overall, the
Figure 78 Share of Investments per Part of the Value Chain (Total relevant Funds) – Romania
8% (0.4 bn)
Mobility
14% (0.7 bn)

Research
5.1bn
Transmission and Distribution 59% (3 bn)
19% (0.9 bn)

The main investments tion fleets and constructing a supply network of refu-
elling stations). In addition, demonstration projects
Investments dedicated exclusively to hydrogen are also expected to set the country’s future course
technologies (amounting to 713 million euros) are of hydrogen development (including comprehen-
directed to hydrogen research projects. Aiming to sive hydrogen IPCEI projects).
achieve deep decarbonisation in the country, the in-
vestment will be directed to demonstration projects 6.2.5 IN A NUTSHELL
in renewable hydrogen, research, development and
facilitation of IPCEI projects, and vertically integrat- Across the EU, the recovery and resilience plans con-
ing projects from multiple industries, all using hydro- tain over 54 billion euros relevant for hydrogen; 12
gen. The demonstration projects intend to evaluate billion of these represent investments exclusive to
their economic and technical feasibility. The funds hydrogen, while the rest are dedicated to multiple
will be spent between 2021-2026. technologies, including hydrogen. France, Germa-
ny, Italy, and Spain have the largest hydrogen allo-
Within the category of non-exclusive funds, cations (exclusive and non-exclusive funds). Relative
3 billion euros are directed to Mobility applications. to the total amount of the plans, Germany, Austria,
This includes funds for the modernization and re- Latvia, Slovakia, Romania, and France have the most
newal of railway and road transportation, including, ambitious plans.
among other technologies, the acquisition of hydro-
gen-powered trains and minibuses. The investments France’s RRP stands out as the most ambitious inves-
intend to contribute to the modernisation of railway tor in hydrogen. It has the largest absolute amount
lines and increase road quality in rural areas. Roma- of funds relevant for hydrogen. It already plans to
nia also allocates almost 1 billion euros for both the mobilise an additional 5 billion euros by 2030 to
acquisition of hydrogen-powered transportation and boost the national strategy to accelerate hydrogen.
to build a hydrogen supply network, among other The French investments also encompass almost the
technologies and their associated infrastructure. entire chain.
Italy stands out as having the largest exclusive al-
Targets and deadlines location in hydrogen across almost the whole value
chain.
Romania sets a number of goals for mobility appli-
cations financed by RRP funds. It aims to purchase France, Germany, Italy and Spain have linked their
1,000 minibuses and 660 buses, electric or hydro- planned investments in Hydrogen within their RRPs
gen-powered, as well as ten hydrogen-powered lo- to their national hydrogen strategies. Investments in
comotives. IPCEI projects related to hydrogen are also covered
by the recovery funds of France, Germany, and Ro-
To sum up mania.
The Romanian recovery plan is linked to the in-

creased efforts to develop hydrogen in the country,
including the design of a national hydrogen strate-
gy. In the next few years, the recovery funds relevant
to Hydrogen will be concentrated in sustainable mo-
bility (modernizing and renewing public transporta-
N AT I O N A L
POLICIES AND
INCENTIVES
ON HYDROGEN
T E C H N O LO G I E S
While it may seem from current news coverage
that attention to hydrogen is rather recent, in fact,
hydrogen has already been on the minds of many
policymakers for years.
Countries have been adopting various hydrogen

and fuel cell-related policies covering production,
distribution, and end-use of hydrogen for some time
now. Given the growing importance of hydrogen in
decarbonisation efforts, more hydrogen related pol-
icies will be adopted.
This sub-chapter provides an overview of already

enacted (in-force) hydrogen and fuel cell policies in
countries across Europe. More specifically, it focus-
es on policies related to mobility, infrastructure, and
industry. The methodology used for data collection
and information about the geographic coverage
can be found in the Methodological Annexe.
This chapter provides an

overview of already enacted
(in-force) hydrogen and fuel
cell policies in countries
across Europe
Source: Hydrogen Europe based on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory (fchobservatory.eu)
7.1 POLICIES INCENTIVISING THE

UPTAKE OF HYDROGEN IN
MOBILITY
This section covers active policies regarding the including high-capacity ones that will refuel tons
Nine countries support and development of hydrogen refuelling of hydrogen/day, is needed to satisfy the demand
in Europe infrastructure and the deployment of FCEVs. This in- from buses and heavy-duty vehicles. Such a network
provide CAPEX cludes CAPEX support for Hydrogen Refuelling Sta- is a prerequisite for further expansion of hydro-
support for the tions (HRS), FCEV purchase subsidies, registration gen-based mobility. Some of the active policies to
construction of tax benefits for FCEV passenger cars and purchase support the development of HRS include (i) targets
HRS subsidies for buses and heavy-duty vehicles. or mandates, (ii) financial incentives in the form of
CAPEX support, (iii) simplifying permitting rules, and
(iv) common standards.
7.1.1 HYDROGEN REFUELLING
INFRASTRUCTURE Nine countries in Europe provide CAPEX support for
the construction of HRS, mainly countries in Central
Similar to electric charging infrastructure, hydrogen and Northern Europe. These include Austria, Bel-
refuelling infrastructure is essential for ensuring the gium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Nor-
decarbonisation of transport. A nationwide network way, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
of publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling stations,
Figure 79 Overview of HRS CAPEX policy support in Europe
HRS CAPEX support
The method of supporting HRS development dif- 7.1.2 FCEV ROAD TRANSPORT
fers across European countries. For example, in the POLICIES
UK, the CAPEX support is available from the Office
for Low-Emission Vehicles under the Hydrogen for The size of the FCEV M1 fleet in 2021 is 2030 vehi-
Transport Advancement Programme (“HyTAP”) that cles, representing about half of the number of BEVs
provides financial support for updating existing HRS in Europe in 2008.77 Similarly to BEVs, FCEVs will
and provision of new HRS.84 also require initial government support to establish
themselves on the market. Some EU governments
The Czech Republic recently began supporting HRS have or are planning to adopt policies supporting
development through the Alternative fuel infrastruc- the deployment of FCEVs. This section will provide
ture support program – development support for an overview of FCEV supportive policies, such as
hydrogen refuelling stations published in January purchase subsidies and registration tax benefits for
2020.85 passenger cars, buses, and heavy-duty vehicles.
Purchase subsidies and registration tax benefits are
In the Netherlands, HRS development qualifies for the most common policies used to support alterna-
funding from the Dutch Enterprise Agency (RVO) tive vehicle sales. They have been used extensively
through tax depreciation. The scheme aims to sup- for supporting BEVs. Both policies bridge the gap
port mobility and transport projects that reduce between the established and emerging technology
emissions and are in the pre-commercial phase. Sev- by decreasing the capital investment of the new and
eral HRS have financially benefited from this funding required technology.78
stream.86
Passenger cars
The Italian National Strategic Plan for Sustainable
Mobility from 2019 commits to co-funding alterna- Twelve countries, shown in dark green in Figure 80,
tive fuel infrastructure, including hydrogen up to currently provide both purchase subsidies and regis-
80%. tration tax benefits for FCEVs. Seventeen countries
in total have purchase subsidies for FCEV passenger
Austria provides a 20%-30% CAPEX subsidy for HRS cars in effect. Four countries, Denmark, Czech Re-
as part of a mobility subsidy program. HRS oper- public, Slovakia, and Hungary, have registration tax
ators have to prove that their hydrogen supply is benefits but no purchase subsidies available.
100% renewable to be eligible.
The amount of provided subsidy varies significantly
In Flanders, Belgium, Ecologiepremie+ allows com- between different member states from 2,000 EUR
panies to receive up to 30% CAPEX support for an in Finland to 21,000 EUR in Poland. Figure 81 be-
HRS installation with onsite electrolysis that produc- low provides an overview of the 14 countries with
es renewable hydrogen. purchase subsidies for FCEV passenger cars and
the maximum obtainable subsidy in each one in
000s EUR.
Czechia, Hungary, Lithuania,
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, However, Czechia, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands,
and Switzerland provide purchase Portugal, Slovakia, and Switzerland provide pur-
subsidies to battery electric vehicles chase subsidies to battery electric vehicles but not
to fuel cell electric vehicles.
but not to fuel cell electric vehicles.
84
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/521147/supporting-fleet-uptake-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-guidance-note.pdf
85
https://www.opd.cz/stranka/vyzva-81/
86
https://www.rvo.nl/subsidie-en-financieringswijzer/dkti-transport
Figure 80 Overview of purchase subsidies and registration tax benefits adoption for FCEV passenger cars
Purchase subsidy and registration tax benefit adopted

Only purchase subsidy adopted
Only registration tax benefit adopted
Figure 81 Purchase subsidies for FCEV passenger cars
Purchase subsidy adopted
5 Maximum purchase subsidy in 000s, EUR87
1.5
10
7 5
2.9
20
5
3 10
4.5 9
6
10
87
Figures are for European Union in 2008 and European Union plus the UK in 2020. Sources are European Alternative Fuels Observatory and Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory
Buses and heavy-duty vehicles In the UK, the active policy subsidises 75% of the
CAPEX difference between FCEV bus and EuroV1
Fuel cell buses and heavy-duty vehicles are poten- diesel bus while only up to 20% or 18,700 EUR for
tially a highly attractive replacement for diesel trucks heavy-duty vehicles under a different scheme.
and diesel buses. They can be refuelled in minutes Austria subsidises buses depending on passenger
and achieve a range of hundreds of kilometres. seats with a maximum of 130,000 EUR for buses
with more than 120 passengers. In comparison,
Given hydrogen’s versatility, there is a growing inter- heavy-duty FCEVs receive up to 50,000 EUR for ve-
est in zero-emission logistics in Europe, particular- hicles above 12 tonnes.88
ly from major retailers and their transport solutions
providers. Yet, the policy landscape has responded France provides 50,000 EUR for heavy-duty vehicles
only partially as purchase subsidies for fuel cell bus- as of 2021 while providing 30,000 EUR for buses.
es are available in only 12 countries. Moreover, pur-
chase subsidies for heavy-duty vehicles are available Sweden subsidises 10% of the purchase price for
in even fewer, 10. FCEV buses with more than 14 passengers. Bus
operators can claim 20% of the price difference be-
While for some countries, like Poland, Spain, and tween FCEV and conventional buses. For heavy-duty
Ireland, the same policies and financial incentives vehicles in Sweden, the purchase subsidy amounts
apply for buses and HDVs, other countries have dif- to a maximum of 20% of the investment. Irish gov-
ferent policies. ernment subsidies 40-60% of the price difference for
HDVs and buses.
Figure 82 Overview of purchase subsidies and registration tax benefits adoption for FCEV buses and heavy-duty vehicles
Purchase subsidy for both buses and heavy-duty vehicles

Purchase subsidy for buses
Purchase subsidy for heavy-duty vehicles
88
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory
7.2 POLICIES IMPACTING

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
AND TRANSMISSION
Energy system integration, made possible using The Flemish government in Belgium supports 20%
hydrogen as the missing link, is one of the main to 40% of CAPEX for renewable or low-carbon hy-
drivers of the hydrogen economy. The transport of drogen production projects over 3 million EUR via
hydrogen produced from renewable energy using a “Strategische ecologiesteun”.
retrofitted or repurposed natural gas network or in
a new hydrogen network could help unlock the full Hydrogen production projects are eligible for
potential of renewable energy that would otherwise CAPEX funding in Denmark and Sweden through
be curtailed.89 various industrial emission reduction initiatives. In
addition, Bulgaria hopes to adopt CAPEX support
7.2.1 PRODUCTION SUPPORT for renewable hydrogen production as part of its Re-
covery and Resiliency Plan.
One of the most common policies to incentivise new
technology adoption is CAPEX support. According In addition to CAPEX subsidies, five countries (Den-
to the FCHO, only eight countries provide CAPEX mark, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland)
subsidies for renewable or low-carbon hydrogen try to incentivise electrolytic hydrogen production
Only eight production plants. However, these funding schemes by providing reductions in electricity price compo-
countries provide are highly heterogeneous in terms of the means of nents for the electricity exemptions via other means.
CAPEX subsidies support that they provide.
for renewable In France, electrolytic processes are exempted from
or low-carbon For example, the Energy Aid program in Finland the domestic tax on final electricity consumption. In
hydrogen supports the implementation of new technologies, addition, consumers with stable or counter-cyclical
production plants including electrolysers, making them eligible to re- consumption profiles, such as some electrolysers,
ceive up to 40% investment subsidy. German fund- can benefit from a tariff reduction for using the pub-
ing program for market activation, part of the frame- lic electricity network (TURPE) under specific condi-
work of National Innovation Program Hydrogen and tions. In Sweden, all electrolytic processes, including
Fuel Cell Technology, supports electrolytic hydrogen electrolytic hydrogen production, are exempt from
production for the transport sector by funding water electricity tax.
electrolysis production projects with funding of up
to 45% of the total investment for the plant. In Denmark, electricity for hydrogen production is
exempted from taxation. In Germany, electrolysers
In Austria, hydrogen production is eligible for fund- are exempt from grid charges based on the Energy
ing from Kommunalkredit Public Consulting for up Industry Act when they use grid electricity with re-
to 30% of relevant additional CAPEX costs com- newable guarantees of origin.
pared to comparable technology.
89
I.e., limitations of the electricity transmission and distribution system and the lack of storage capacity for renewable electricity are very often the main bottleneck
standing in the way of further RES development, all of which are alleviated through the use of hydrogen. the introduction of hydrogen would make full use of the
gas grid’s immense energy storage capacities, and provide indirect renewable electricity transmission
In addition, according to the revised German Re- tration in the natural gas distribution or transmission
newable Energy Sources Act (EEG) 2021, the EEG network.
levy for electricity used for hydrogen production will
be reduced to zero. Germany, at 10%, has the highest legal admitted
concentration of hydrogen in transmission network.
7.2.2 GAS GRID HYDROGEN Czechia, on the other hand, imposes a legal limit of
CONCENTRATION 0%. Figure 83 below presents the maximum permit-
ted percentage of hydrogen (by volume) in various
As hydrogen and natural gas have different chem- European countries’ transmission networks, either
ical characteristics, blending hydrogen with natural legally or according to national safety regulations.
gas also changes the characteristics of the mixture.
Therefore, the blending of gas and hydrogen is
viewed as an early step towards gradual gas grid
decarbonisation.90 Furthermore, injecting hydrogen
into some natural gas distribution networks is already
technically feasible today without a major overhaul
of pipelines or appliances (e.g., if the mixture does
not exceed 10-20% of hydrogen by volume).
In terms of policies, one of the key issues is the max-

imum legal or safely acceptable hydrogen concen-
Figure 83 Countries with legal or safety limits on acceptable hydrogen concentration in TSO networks
1%
2%
0.1%
0.02%
0.1%
0.1%
10%
0%
4%
2%
6%
0.5%
5%
90
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/hydrogen_europe_-_vision_on_the_role_of_hydrogen_and_gas_infrastructure.pdf
7.3 POLICIES SUPPORTING THE

INTRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN
IN INDUSTRY
The current use of hydrogen spans various industries, CAPEX subsidies for renewable and low-carbon
including as a raw material in the chemical industry, hydrogen production projects in the industry are in
for refining, as a reducing agent in the metallurgic effect in six countries Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Fin-
industry, as a feedstock for the production of ammo- land, Germany, and the Netherlands, for their use in
nia, methanol, and various polymers. In refineries, industry.
hydrogen is used for the processing of intermediate
oil products. One of the main future opportunities Finland’s Energy Aid program provides up to 40%
for hydrogen is its use in these and other industrial of the initial investment to new technologies that
processes that would have been difficult to decarbo- achieve the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
nise through different means.91 and/or energy savings. This includes the production
of hydrogen used in the industry via water electrol-
One of the methods of incentivising industry de- ysis and using conventional hydrogen-producing
carbonisation is CAPEX subsidies for the facilities’ coupled with carbon capture. The program is not
owners to encourage them to innovate and decar- limited to a specific industry and can be used across
bonise their operations. different industries.
Figure 84 CAPEX subsidies for renewable/low carbon hydrogen projects to decarbonize industry
CAPEX subsidies for renewable / low carbon hydrogen

projects to decarbonise industry
91
https://www.hydrogeneurope.eu/hydrogen-applications
The Netherlands’s Energy Investment Allowance

provides tax deductions up to 45% of CAPEX of en-
ergy-saving investments, including industrial hydro-
gen applications.
The Flemish government in Belgium encourages

companies to make their processes more environ-
mentally friendly and energy-efficient by covering
20 to 40% of capital expenditure through its Strate-
gic Ecology support program.92
While Austria does not provide a specific policy, its

Kommunalcredit Public Consulting can provide up
to 30% of relevant additional CAPEX costs of 1.5
million EUR applicable for industrial hydrogen proj-
ects.
In Germany, the Environmental Innovation Program

provides up to 30% investment grants for decar-
bonising industrial processes using new technolo-
gies, including hydrogen. More information, con-
ditions, and links to the policies can be found on
fchobservatory.eu.
92
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory
M E T H O D O LO G I CA L
N OT E
CHAPTER 1: DEFINITION OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION TYPES BY AVAILABILITY
Figure 85 Definition of hydrogen production types by availability

Where:
1. Captive hydrogen production onsite used ex- 4. Hydrogen produced for retail purposes and
clusively for own consumption within the same sold in relatively small volumes. Usually distrib-
facility. uted in a compressed form via cylinders or tube
2. Excess hydrogen production capacity in ded- trailers (200 bar). In a few cases, it can be liqui-
icated installations that can be valorised and fied and subsequently transported by trucks.
sold to external hydrogen merchant compa- 5. By-product hydrogen vented to the atmo-
nies for resale. This has been applied only to sphere or used as feedstock for internal pro-
installations, which are dedicated to supplying cesses or onsite energy generation.
hydrogen merchants. 6. By-product hydrogen that is purified and sold
3. Hydrogen produced in large industrial installa- to merchants for further resale.
tions usually dedicated to serving a single cus- 7. By-product hydrogen that is sold directly to
tomer or an industrial cluster. Usually produced nearby captive industry.
in close vicinity or distributed with pipelines.
Whenever it could be identified that the instal-
lation was serving a single customer, those in-
stallations were categorised as captive. In other
cases, it was categorised as a merchant.
CHAPTER 2: LEVELIZED COST OF HYDROGEN ESTIMATIONS ASSUMPTIONS
Table 2 Assumptions for estimation of hydrogen production costs
Item Unit Value Source
CAPEX EUR/kW 600 [CHE SRIA 2021]
Economic life time years 30 [BNEF 2019]
Energy consumption kWh/kgH2 50.00 [CHE SRIA 2021]
Stack degradation1 per 1000 hrs 0.12% [CHE SRIA 2021]
Other OPEX2 % CAPEX 4.00% [CHE SRIA 2021]
Costs of capital % 6.0% in real terms -
Source: Hydrogen Europe based on updated Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of the Clean Hydrogen for
Europe partnership and BloombergNEF, “Hydrogen: The Economics of Production from Renewables”, 2019.
Notes: 1) Stack degradation is defined as percentage efficiency loss when run at nominal capacity. For example,
0.125%/1,000h results in a 10% increase in energy consumption over 10 years with 8,000 operating hours per year.
2) Operation and maintenance costs averaged over the first ten years of the system. Potential stack replacements are
included in O&M costs. Electricity costs are not included in O&M costs.
Table 3 Renewable energy capacity factors in the EU
PV Onshore wind Offshore wind

Entity CF_avg CF_top CF_max CF_avg CF_top CF_max CF_avg CF_max
Belgium 11.2 13.6 14.2 21.3 25.0 38.0 47.0 50.0
Bulgaria 14.3 17.9 18.4 16.9 23.0 27.0 34.0 36.0
Czechia 11.7 13.7 14.0 23.4 28.0 32.0
Denmark 10.6 13.7 14.4 17.2 44.0 47.0 47.0 53.0
Germany 9.8 13.5 14.9 20.4 25.0 40.0 44.0 51.0
Estonia 8.9 12.9 12.9 23.7 33.0 33.0 46.0 49.0
Ireland 8.8 11.9 12.3 29.2 50.5 51.0 53.0
Greece 16.9 22.1 25.1 21.2 35.0 51.0 29.0 42.0
Spain 17.2 21.8 25.6 27.2 29.4 36.8 30.7 46.4
France 12.9 16.7 21.8 22.9 32.0 42.0 42.0 48.0
Croatia 12.6 17.8 18.6 17.7 27.0 33.0 24.0 29.0
Italy 13.9 19.1 22.5 16.2 26.6 34.3 25.0 34.0
Cyprus 17.0 25.3 25.3 12.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 25.0
Latvia 9.2 13.0 13.0 15.3 34.1 34.1 46.0 48.8
Lithuania 9.4 12.9 12.9 21.2 33.9 33.9 46.0 46.7
Luxembourg 11.3 13.4 13.4 12.5 22.6 22.6
Hungary 13.8 16.6 17.2 16.9 23.0 29.0
Malta 16.8 25.2 25.2 27.0 32.8 32.8 30.0 30.6
Netherlands 11.0 13.4 14.3 25.0 36.7 45.1 47.0 49.8
Austria 12.7 14.5 15.9 27.5 34.0 39.0
Poland 10.2 13.6 14.0 23.0 29.8 35.6 45.2 48.1
Portugal 20.9 24.2 25.3 22.2 24.9 28.2 33.9 38.6
Romania 14.0 16.7 18.0 19.6 22.6 27.0 35.7 38.7
Slovenia 12.9 16.1 16.2 14.5 24.1 26.5
Slovakia 11.6 14.8 15.6 16.4 24.7 30.2
Finland 6.8 12.9 14.7 19.1 36.0 44.0 46.0 49.0
Sweden 7.5 12.8 14.1 25.7 39.9 46.6 44.0 49.7
United Kingdom 9.3 12.4 14.0 27.2 39.7 52.4 48.6 55.6
Norway 5.1 10.5 13.2 22.7 49.5 52.4 41.4 48.9
Where: PV: PV: CF_avg – Average CF in 1986-2015 based on EMHIRESPV | CF_top – CF for top 10% locations | CF_max - max CF for
ir_global_tracking with 0.85 performance ratio, Wind: CF_top - CF for top 10% locations | CF_max - maximum CF available
Source: JRC EMHIRES and ENSPRESO dataset for wind and solar power generation, as well as JRC, “Wind potentials for EU and
neighbouring countries”, 2018.
Table 4 Renewable energy generation cost assumpti
Wind Wind
Item Unit PV Source
Onshore Offshore
Economic lifetime years 25 25 25 [IRENA 2021]
CAPEX EUR/kW 737 1,248 2,847 [IRENA 2021]
Fixed O&M EUR/kW/year 13 20 70 [Frauenhofer ISE 2021]
Variable O&M EUR/kWh 0.000 0.008 0.008 [Frauenhofer ISE 2021]
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT TRACKING METHODOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
The list of power-to-hydrogen, reforming with car- various public and private data points. As a result,
bon capture, and infrastructure projects that form a this list includes projects in all stages, including con-
basis for the analysis, have been collected by Hydro- cept, feasibility studies, FEED, detailed design &
gen Europe from both public and restricted sources. permitting, and construction.
It provides a snapshot of the current developments.
If the authors of this report refer to and provide de-
The authors collected this information to the best of tails of specific projects, this information is either
their abilities. However, they cannot guarantee the public or has been specifically authorised by the
absolute completeness or accuracy of the collected project partners.
information. If only estimate ranges have been giv-
en for capacity or start dates, authors adopted the Geographical coverage of the database consists of
average provided value. The authors never made EU 27, European Free Trade Association, and the
their own conclusions about the start date, capacity, United Kingdom. Results in this chapter purposefully
technology, or other project information. Distinctly exclude some countries depending on the quantity
different phases of large projects are being consid- and quality of the collected information.
ered as separate projects.
The authors have adopted an inclusive approach

when compiling this list of projects to develop the
most exhaustive compilation of European pow-
er-to-hydrogen projects. The authors are not judging
the feasibility of announced facilities but reporting
CHAPTER 7. METHODOLOGY AND

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
Methodology: Data have been collected by Hydro-

gen Europe through a network of national respon-
dents for the FCH Observatory.
Geographical scope: Geographical coverage of the

database consists of EU countries including Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Den-
mark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Po-
land, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden as well as Norway, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom.
A full list of National respondents can be found at

the following link: https://fchobservatory.eu/index.
php/about-us
Results in this chapter purposefully exclude some

countries depending on the quantity and quality of
the collected information.
Hydrogen Europe Industry Secretariat
Avenue de la Toison d’ Or 56- 60

1060 Brussels
Belgium
secretariat@hydrogeneurope.eu
tel: +32 2 54 087 75
WWW.HYDROGENEUROPE.EU

2021 HE CleanH2Monitor 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 HE CleanH2Monitor 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 HE CleanH2Monitor 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MISSION - NO EMISSION

Europe is leading within hydrogen technologies,

What are the possibilities?

Climate, circularity and a real reset are the driving

1 HYDROGEN DEMAND AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN THE EU 8

1.1 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CAPACITY 10

1.1.1 CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION CAPACITY 11

1.1.2 REFORMING WITH CARBON CAPTURE 14

1.1.3 POWER-TO-HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CAPACITY 14

1.2 HYDROGEN DEMAND 18

1.2.1 DEMAND BY SECTOR 18

1.2.2 DEMAND PER COUNTRY 20

1.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF HYDROGEN BY EU COUNTRIES 21

2 LEVELIZED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION COSTS IN THE EU 24

2.1 SMR BENCHMARK 27

2.2 GRID-CONNECTED ELECTROLYSIS 29

2.2.1 COSTS OF PRODUCTION 29

2.2.2 CARBON INTENSITY 32

2.3 DIRECT CONNECTION TO A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE 34

2.4 RENEWABLE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION COSTS DEVELOPMENTS 38

3 PLANNED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 43

3.1 PLANNED POWER-TO-HYDROGEN PROJECTS 45

3.2 REFORMING WITH CARBON CAPTURE 55

3.3 HYDROGEN TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE 58

3.4 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 63

4 PLANNED HYDROGEN CONSUMPTION IN INDUSTRY 65

4.1 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN STEEL 70

4.2 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN E-FUELS 72

4.3 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN AMMONIA 74

4.4 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN REFINING 76

4.5 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN METHANOL 78

5 EU POLICIES AND INCENTIVES 80

5.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND PROPOSALS ADOPTED/PRESENTED IN 2020 AND 2021 82

5.1.1 EU CLIMATE LAW – A BINDING LEGAL ACT 83

5.1.2 THE FIT FOR-55 PACKAGE AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 84

5.1.3 TRANS-EUROPEAN NETWORK – ENERGY (TEN-E) PROPOSAL 88

5.2 NON-BINDING POLICIES AND STRATEGIES 89

6.1 EU FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 96

6.1.1 ETS INNOVATION FUND 97

6.1.2 HORIZON EUROPE AND CLEAN HYDROGEN JU 97

6.1.3 MODERNISATION FUND 98

6.1.4 JUST TRANSITION FUND 99

6.1.5 CONNECTING EUROPE FACILITY – TRANSPORT AND ENERGY 99

6.1.7 INVESTEU 100

6.1.8 LIFE 101

6.2 RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE FACILITY AND NATIONAL PLANS 102

6.2.2 RRP ALLOCATIONS ALONG THE HYDROGEN VALUE CHAIN 107

TARGETS AND DEADLINES ASSOCIATED WITH RRP INVESTMENTS IN HYDROGEN

6.2.4 A CLOSER LOOK AT THE MOST AMBITIOUS PLANS 112

6.2.5 IN A NUTSHELL 122

7 NATIONAL POLICIES AND INCENTIVES ON HYDROGEN 123

7.1.1. HYDROGEN REFUELLING INFRASTRUCTURE 125

7.1.2 FCEV ROAD TRANSPORT POLICIES 126

7.2 POLICIES IMPACTING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION 129

7.2.1. PRODUCTION SUPPORT 129

7.2.2 GAS GRID HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION 130

7.3 POLICIES SUPPORTING THE INTRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN IN INDUSTRY 131

8 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE 133

Our goal remains

-'93<, =+)6/$$-/18(63;' -'93<, =+)6>8)