Hydrogen Reality XI: Hydrogen as Part of Energy Self-Sufficiency (Not Just Decarbonisation)

Hydrogen is most often perceived today as a tool for decarbonisation.

And yes – that is its key role.

But it is far from the only one.

👉 Hydrogen is primarily an energy tool. And this brings us to another crucial reason for developing it: energy self-sufficiency and independence.

Europe and Its Dependence

Recent years have shown one thing very clearly:

Europe is heavily dependent on energy supplies from other parts of the world.

Whether it is:

  • natural gas
  • oil
  • other energy commodities

If supply disruptions or geopolitical tensions occur,

👉 the impacts are immediate.

Prices rise. Uncertainty increases. And we feel the consequences very quickly.

An Impact That Affects Us All

A typical example is oil.

Whenever oil prices rise:

  • transport becomes more expensive
  • transport operators face higher costs
  • and subsequently manufacturers face higher costs as well

👉 The result:

Not only more expensive fuel.

But also more expensive goods.

Including food.

This means that even if we do not directly use oil or gas ourselves,

👉 in the end, higher prices affect all of us.

Why Self-Sufficiency Matters

Energy self-sufficiency does not mean complete independence.

But it does mean:

  • greater stability
  • lower sensitivity to market fluctuations
  • greater control over energy prices and availability

👉 And this is exactly where hydrogen comes into play.

Hydrogen as Part of the Solution

Hydrogen has one major advantage:

👉 it can be produced locally.

For example:

  • from renewable energy sources
  • from biomass and waste
  • in combination with other technologies

This means:

  • lower dependence on imports
  • greater control over production
  • the ability to stabilise prices over time

Economics Are Beginning to Change

For a long time, the main argument against hydrogen was its cost.

But this is gradually changing.

Today we see:

  • increasing energy prices
  • rising carbon allowance (CO₂) costs
  • growing pressure to decarbonise industry

👉 The result:

The gap between conventional energy sources (such as natural gas) and hydrogen is gradually narrowing.

In other words:

👉 hydrogen is becoming economically competitive.

And in addition:

👉 it offers greater stability than fossil energy sources that depend on global markets.

What Does This Mean?

Hydrogen is not only about emissions.

👉 It is about system resilience.

👉 It is about price stability.

👉 It is about partial independence from external influences.

Conclusion

Decarbonisation is important.

But on its own, it is not enough.

If we want a stable and functional energy system in the long term, we must address not only decarbonisation but also:

👉 energy self-sufficiency.

And this is exactly where hydrogen has a firm place.

Personally

I see hydrogen as a tool that connects decarbonisation with energy stability and independence.

And it is precisely in this context that I see its greatest added value for future energy and industrial projects across Europe.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Energy independence is not an ideology. It is an economic necessity.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality X: A Successful Project in Practice – What Makes the Difference?

🚛 Hydrogen in Transport: Theory vs Reality

In recent months, it has often been said that the adoption of hydrogen in transport is progressing more slowly than expected. Discussions typically focus on cost, infrastructure or insufficient demand.

To a certain extent, all of this is true.

👉 At the same time, another question arises: Is the problem really hydrogen itself – or the way projects are designed?

🧩 Let's Move Beyond Theory

In the previous article, I argued that the problem is not the technology, but implementation.

So let's look at a project where it actually works:

👉 H2 Green Power & Logistics AG

This company demonstrates that hydrogen in transport – including heavy-duty logistics – can work in practice.

And most importantly:

👉 it works not only technically, but also economically.

Not because the technology is different.

But because the entire project is designed differently.

🔑 What Makes the Difference

The basic principle is surprisingly simple:

👉 Projects are not developed in separate parts. They are designed as an integrated system from the very beginning.

This means that:

  • hydrogen production
  • infrastructure (transport and refuelling)
  • specific applications (vehicles and logistics)
  • the end customer
  • financing

➡️ are all planned and implemented in parallel and as interconnected elements.

⚙️ Technology: Not One Path, but a Mix

Another key difference lies in the approach to hydrogen production.

Many projects today rely on a single solution:

👉 electrolyser + renewable energy sources

However, this approach has its limitations:

  • dependence on weather conditions
  • fluctuating production
  • higher costs

Successful projects therefore take a different approach:

👉 combining multiple technologies

For example:

  • renewable energy sources + electrolysers
  • complemented by hydrogen production from biogenic sources (biomass and waste)

📊 What This Means in Practice

This approach has significant consequences:

✔ stable 24/7 production independent of weather conditions
✔ better utilisation of equipment
✔ lower production costs
✔ more stable hydrogen prices

👉 which ultimately means:

➡️ lower prices at the refuelling station
➡️ better economics for the end customer

💰 Economics Are Not a Coincidence

People often say:

“Hydrogen is expensive.”

👉 Reality is more precise:

Hydrogen is expensive when the project is poorly designed.

If:

  • off-take is not secured
  • infrastructure remains underutilised
  • production is not optimised

then the economics naturally do not work.

🧠 The Missing Role: Who Connects Everything?

And here we come to one of the most underestimated aspects:

👉 project management as a whole

For such projects to work, there must be someone who:

  • connects technology suppliers
  • understands both production and utilisation
  • communicates with customers
  • works with financing and funding mechanisms
  • keeps the entire project together

➡️ from the first idea through to implementation.

🌍 What Can the Czech Republic Learn From This?

We have the technologies.

We have the companies.

We have the know-how.

👉 What is often missing is:

  • comprehensive project design
  • connection of the entire value chain
  • and the courage to move into implementation

🚀 Conclusion

Hydrogen in transport is not a question of “yes or no”.

👉 It is a question of how projects are designed to make them work.

If:

  • production, infrastructure and utilisation are connected
  • a technological mix is applied
  • projects are managed as integrated systems

then:

👉 hydrogen can be not only technically viable, but also economically sustainable.

💧 Hydrogen Reality is not about theory.

👉 It is about what we are actually capable of building.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality IX: Hydrogen Is Not the Problem. Implementation Is – Confirmed Directly from Practice

In my previous article, I formulated a simple thesis:

👉 Hydrogen is not the problem. Implementation is.

👉 Last week, I had the opportunity to verify this directly in practice.

I actively participated in the first Energy Platform organised by Central Bohemian Innovation Centre.

This was not a traditional conference. Quite the opposite.

👉 Companies brought concrete challenges from practice
👉 Participants joined discussions based on relevance
👉 And within a few hours, working teams were formed to search for real solutions

The goal was not to present. The goal was to move things towards implementation.

I attended the event thanks to Benon Rychlik, who approached me and eventually convinced me not to come only as a participant, but to bring my own challenge.

Honestly, it was not an easy decision for me.

It was my first event of this kind in the role of an active participant – not only presenting, but also becoming the person around whom a working team was formed.

💡 My challenge

I focused on an area I have been working on for a long time:

👉 How to address industrial energy needs where electrification alone is not sufficient

With a focus on:

  • local hydrogen production
  • the use of biomass and bio-waste (including sewage sludge)
  • circular economy principles
  • and real operational, mobility and commercial applications

🤝 What followed

After a short introduction, a team quickly formed around the challenge.

At one table, representatives from:

  • research
  • industry
  • innovation ecosystems
  • and additional energy experts

came together.

And the most important part began:

👉 searching for real applications

🔍 What the discussion revealed

It became clear very quickly that the technology itself is not the problem.

Quite the opposite.

The discussion was factual, open and realistic. It was not “enthusiasm for hydrogen”, but rather focused on:

  • concrete applications
  • economics
  • availability of feedstock
  • and real limitations

Very interesting ideas also emerged:

👉 the investor does not necessarily have to be an industrial company
→ it could also be a church or municipalities

👉 new input materials
→ for example textile waste (although with questions regarding RED II/III)

At the same time, it became clear that there is major potential in:

👉 local hydrogen production using biomass and bio-waste, especially where production can be directly connected to local consumption and transport minimised.

⚠️ Reality from practice: Ostrava

The discussion with colleagues from Ostrava was also extremely important.

Specific examples were mentioned:

  • planned hydrogen buses → not implemented
  • hydrogen trains → replaced by another solution

The main reason was economics.

From my perspective, however, the issue is not only the cost of technology.

👉 The key factor is how the project is designed.

  • whether the right technology mix is selected
  • whether the business model makes sense
  • and above all:
    👉 whether there is someone who truly manages and coordinates the project

🧠 Where the real problem lies

And this brings us back to the original thesis:

👉 technologies exist
👉 studies exist
👉 interest exists

👉 but projects often remain only on paper

The reason is surprisingly simple:

👉 there is often nobody who can connect everything together and bring it to implementation

Meaning a role that:

  • connects technologies
  • coordinates partners
  • communicates with investors
  • works with funding instruments
  • and keeps the project functioning as one integrated whole

Without this role, most projects remain stuck in the study phase.

🔧 What I take away from this

For me personally, this was a very intense experience:

  • first public appearance in this role
  • first leadership of a working team
  • first confrontation with cross-sector reality

It was demanding.

But also extremely valuable.

👉 It confirmed to me that:

✔ we have the technologies
✔ we have the ideas
✔ interest exists

👉 but the decisive factor is:

👉 the ability to connect these elements and implement them

🔗 What comes next

If we truly want hydrogen projects to emerge:

👉 it is not enough to focus only on technology

👉 we also need to focus on:

👉 implementation

And this is exactly where I see the greatest potential for the next steps.

📌 (in the photo: output from the workshop team discussion – identification of applications, partners and risks)

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality VIII: Hydrogen Is Not the Problem. Implementation Is.

Hydrogen today is not a technological problem. The problem is that we still do not know how to bring it into real projects. And this is exactly where it is being decided what will truly work – and what will remain only on paper.

Where projects realistically get stuck

In practice, the same barriers repeatedly appear:

Mismatch between production and demand

Production capacity exists, but secure off-take is missing. Both sides wait – and the project stalls.

Regulation vs reality

Not every meaningful project meets all regulatory conditions. And not every project that does is economically sustainable.

Missing infrastructure and connectivity

Projects are created in isolation. Links between production, distribution and end use are often missing.

Missing cross-border and interregional cooperation

And yet this cooperation is often the key to connecting resources, demand and infrastructure.

No one holds the full picture

Each stakeholder solves their own part. But the project as a whole often lacks a clear leader.

What is missing most, in my view

👉 Projects are not designed as functional systems from the very beginning.

It is necessary to:

  • set up the right partnerships,
  • connect the full value chain,
  • work with a technological mix.

Not for theory, but for:

  • economics,
  • year-round operational stability,
  • greater self-sufficiency.

One technology alone is rarely enough.

The missing role today

I see a strong willingness to implement projects – both here and in Germany.

But at the same time:

  • courage is missing,
  • decisions are missing,
  • someone is missing who will truly lead the project.

👉 Someone who:

  • connects regions and countries,
  • aligns investors, technologies and industry,
  • and maintains direction from initial concept to implementation.

Without this role, projects often remain in the analysis phase.

The way forward

Not through overly complex mega-projects.

👉 But through smaller, functional models that make sense and can be expanded over time.

Step by step, it becomes possible to:

  • scale technologies,
  • connect sectors (industry, mobility, energy),
  • build infrastructure.

Conclusion

Hydrogen today is no longer a question of “if”.

👉 It is a question of execution.

Start. Stop hesitating. Build the first functional projects.

Personally

Today, I see clear gaps as well as concrete opportunities across Europe.

My vision focuses on how to bring hydrogen to end users – in mobility, industry and other application areas.

But the foundation is always the same:

👉 Build functional infrastructure.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

This is exactly the principle I work on today – connecting individual components so that projects function as complete systems and can actually be realised.

Hydrogen no longer needs more strategies. It needs implementation.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality VII: Clean Hydrogen Partnership – The International Dimension of Hydrogen Projects

When discussing European support for hydrogen, attention is often focused on RFNBO regulation and the conditions for renewable hydrogen produced via electrolysis. However, less attention is paid to the fact that alongside these instruments, there are programmes that support a broader range of technological solutions and, above all, systemic, international projects.

One of these is the Clean Hydrogen Partnership (CHP).

What is the Clean Hydrogen Partnership?

The Clean Hydrogen Partnership is a European initiative focused on research, demonstration and the system integration of hydrogen technologies. Its objective is not only to support individual installations, but to build functional ecosystems that connect:

  • hydrogen production,
  • distribution and infrastructure,
  • concrete applications in industry, mobility and energy,
  • and, importantly, international collaboration among multiple partners.

Unlike some other instruments, support is not limited exclusively to hydrogen that meets the definition of RFNBO. Projects are evaluated primarily based on:

  • technological innovation,
  • system integration,
  • contribution to decarbonisation,
  • and the ability to create a long-term sustainable operational model.

This opens the door for projects based on circular economy principles, the use of biogenic resources, or the combination of multiple technological approaches within a single system.

Hydrogen Valleys: The Region as the Foundation

One of the key concepts of the Clean Hydrogen Partnership is the so-called Hydrogen Valleys – regional projects that connect hydrogen production, infrastructure and specific use cases within a defined territory.

What matters here is not only the technology, but:

  • real hydrogen demand,
  • the involvement of multiple sectors,
  • long-term economic sustainability,
  • and coordination among stakeholders at the regional level.

In this context, hydrogen is not an isolated project, but part of a broader regional transformation strategy.

Cross-border cooperation as a strategic advantage

Cross-border regions represent a specific opportunity. Neighbouring areas often share:

  • similar industrial structures,
  • logistics connections,
  • energy infrastructure,
  • and common challenges related to transformation.

A smaller, realistically designed project on one side of the border can serve as a pilot step. If it is based on real demand and functional partnerships, it can gradually expand – adding further production capacities, additional off-takers and new infrastructure elements.

Such an approach allows the hydrogen ecosystem to be built step by step, without excessive upfront investments and regardless of administrative borders between countries. Over time, this can lead to the creation of an interconnected system that respects the economic logic of the region while using the international dimension as an advantage rather than a barrier.

IF and CHP: Different roles, shared objective

European hydrogen support instruments do not compete with each other – on the contrary, they complement one another.

  • The Innovation Fund focuses primarily on the investment phase of large-scale projects and significant emission reductions at industrial scale.
  • The Clean Hydrogen Partnership supports the creation of international consortia, demonstration of solutions and system integration at the regional level.

However, successful projects are not created as a reaction to a newly opened call. They emerge where there is:

  • clearly defined regional potential,
  • verified demand,
  • established partnerships,
  • and a realistic, step-by-step pathway from preparation to implementation.

What does this mean for Czech regions?

The Clean Hydrogen Partnership is not just “another funding opportunity”. It is a tool that enables the integration of regional strategy, technological solutions and international cooperation into a single functional framework.

For regions that think systematically and are prepared to first validate their potential, it can represent a logical next step – especially in combination with other European or national instruments.

The key is not to look at individual calls in isolation, but to connect them into a long-term development concept. The ability to combine regional needs, technological options and suitable financial instruments into a coherent project will be decisive in the coming years.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality VI: Hydrogen Between Regulation, Infrastructure and Project Reality

In recent months, several important signals have emerged that are worth putting into context. This is not about individual funding calls or technologies, but about the overall direction in which the hydrogen landscape in Europe is evolving.

Following the Innovation Fund – Czech National Info Day, it is becoming increasingly clear that hydrogen is no longer perceived as an experiment, but as a long-term infrastructure topic. At the same time, however, a growing tension is visible between political ambitions, regulatory frameworks and the real feasibility of projects.

Hydrogen is becoming infrastructure – not just technology

One of the most significant developments is the proposed European Grids Package. While it primarily addresses the pressure on electricity grids caused by the rapid expansion of renewables, it also, for the first time, systematically includes hydrogen infrastructure.

Specifically:

  • hydrogen network planning is to become part of the TYNDP (Ten-Year Network Development Plan),
  • ENNO-H is being established as a counterpart to ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G,
  • the European Commission has identified strategic Energy Highways, including two major hydrogen corridors across Europe.

This is a strong signal:
👉 hydrogen is being understood as backbone infrastructure with a multi-decade horizon.

Regulation is driving the market – but at what cost?

At the same time, a large part of the hydrogen market is currently driven by regulation rather than by natural project economics. This is particularly visible in RFNBO, hydrogen mobility and PtX.

  • prices are not driven by technological efficiency,
  • but by requirements on electricity origin, temporal correlation and quotas,
  • demand is often secondary – a response to regulatory obligation.

Regulation has its role in a transformation phase. The problem arises when it begins to limit technological options instead of enabling system optimisation.

Central corridors vs regional reality

European hydrogen corridors clearly focus on:

  • large volumes,
  • imports,
  • long-distance transport.

From an EU energy strategy perspective, this is logical. From the perspective of regions and industry, key questions arise:

  • local availability of hydrogen,
  • cost after transport and infrastructure,
  • dependence on external supply chains,
  • implementation timelines.

This reopens the discussion about regional and decentralised solutions as a necessary complement.

Technology mix is not a weakness – but a necessity

Project experience shows clearly that:

  • no single technology can solve all applications,
  • not every region has the same conditions,
  • not every sector requires the same type of hydrogen.

Industrial demand, mobility, energy systems and PtX applications have different requirements in:

  • supply stability,
  • cost,
  • carbon footprint,
  • investment structure.

This is why a technology-neutral approach is essential.

Key takeaway from Innovation Fund

The Innovation Fund confirms:

  • the EU is ready to invest heavily in hydrogen,
  • but expects system-level impact.

Future development requires:

  • alignment of regulation and operational reality,
  • integrated view of infrastructure and production,
  • open discussion about where hydrogen makes sense.

Hydrogen is not an end goal. It is a tool.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality V: Why It Makes Sense to Consider “Green” Hydrogen Beyond RFNBO

In the previous articles, I focused on the differences between individual categories of “green” hydrogen and how European regulation shapes technological choices. In this issue, I would like to move one step further – to a practical question that industry, mobility and energy sectors are facing today:

Does it make sense to invest in the production and use of hydrogen that is not produced under RFNBO, but complies with RED II / RED III?

The short answer is: Yes – if we think strategically, long-term, and in the context of real decarbonisation.

Decarbonisation does not happen overnight

Large industrial projects – whether in steel, chemicals, energy or transport – are not planned in months, but in years. The same applies to:

  • the construction of production technologies,
  • permitting processes,
  • infrastructure,
  • integration into existing operations.

Waiting for the “ideal” regulatory state often means waiting too long.

While regulations evolve, emissions are generated every single day. And this is exactly where technologies that comply with RED II / RED III come into play – including hydrogen production from biomass, biogenic residues or other low-emission pathways.

What hydrogen beyond RFNBO brings to companies

From the perspective of industry, mobility and municipalities, such projects offer several concrete advantages:

  • real emission reductions already today, not only in the future,
  • higher energy independence,
  • stable production independent of weather conditions,
  • the possibility to integrate circular economy principles,
  • preparation of infrastructure, know-how and operational teams.

Hydrogen produced under RED II / RED III has the same quality and usability – in industry, mobility and energy production. The difference is not in the molecule, but in its regulatory classification.

And what about the disadvantages? It is fair to state them clearly

From today’s legislative perspective, it is necessary to openly acknowledge the downsides:

  • such hydrogen cannot always be counted towards mandatory RFNBO quotas,
  • some companies may face temporary penalties or fees,
  • financial support is less straightforward compared to RFNBO projects.

These are real constraints that cannot be ignored.

But this is exactly where strategic thinking becomes essential.

The prepared are not surprised

If a company today:

  • invests in technology,
  • reduces its emissions,
  • sets up processes,
  • builds infrastructure,

then at the moment when regulation changes or expands (which happens gradually), it will not be at the starting line, but close to the finish.

While others are still designing, permitting and building, prepared companies can:

  • smoothly adapt to new conditions,
  • scale up operations,
  • or complement their technology with additional elements.

Where does financing fit into this?

European instruments such as the Innovation Fund currently strongly emphasise RFNBO, but at the same time:

  • allow support for broader decarbonisation solutions,
  • evaluate the overall emission impact of projects,
  • and gradually respond to technological reality.

This is precisely why it makes sense to prepare projects already now, even if the conditions are not yet ideal.

Conclusion

Hydrogen produced under RED II / RED III is not bypassing decarbonisation. It is a pragmatic way to:

  • reduce emissions,
  • prepare for the future,
  • and avoid losing time waiting for “perfect” regulation.

It is not about going against the rules. It is about being ready when the rules evolve.

And in decarbonisation, more than anywhere else, one principle applies:

Those who are prepared are not surprised.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality IV: Can Hydrogen Projects Outside RFNBO Still Receive Support?

I recently attended the Innovation Fund – Czech National Info Day, which aimed to present in detail the conditions and expectations of the European Innovation Fund (Innovation Fund, CINEA) for upcoming calls.

My main motivation for attending was to verify whether funding opportunities exist for hydrogen production projects based on biomass for industrial use, and more broadly for hydrogen production technologies that do not fall under the RFNBO regulation but still deliver significant and measurable greenhouse gas emission reductions.

What matters is not the label, but the impact

One key message from the presentations and discussions was clear:
The Innovation Fund is not limited exclusively to RFNBO technologies.

What matters is whether a project:

  • demonstrates innovation (technology, process or integration level),

  • delivers quantifiable greenhouse gas emission reductions,

  • is technically, economically and financially mature,

  • and has a clear application in sectors contributing to major emission reductions, often within ETS-covered industries.

Preparation phase is critical

One of the most important insights from the Info Day was that project preparation is a crucial prerequisite for applying to the Innovation Fund.

Projects must already include key documentation at the moment of application, typically:

  • feasibility study

  • detailed business case

  • lifecycle financial model

  • risk analysis

  • baseline scenario and emission reduction methodology

  • financing structure

High-quality preparation often requires six months or more.

Project implementation timeline

Once approved, projects usually need to be implemented within five years, according to the grant agreement.

This timeline applies to the implementation phase, not the preparation phase.

Role of the Ministry of Environment

For Czech projects, the Ministry of Environment plays an important role as a national contact point and potential partner in complementary financing.

However, the final evaluation and funding decision remains with the European Commission through CINEA.

Practical implications

These insights are particularly relevant for hydrogen production projects based on:

  • biomass

  • biogenic residues

  • other non-RFNBO technologies

Such projects can provide stable energy production, significant short-term emission reductions and economically viable industrial applications.

In my view, this opens the door for a wider range of hydrogen projects than is often assumed today.

I focus on the development of hydrogen projects and infrastructure strategies in a European context.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality III: EU Regulation “On the Table” – Why Not Every Mix Is a Real Mix

When we speak about an energy mix, we usually imagine a diverse combination of technologies working together to meet emission, stability and cost requirements. Logically, a mix should mean choice.

However, European regulation tells a different story.

Not every mix is a real mix. And not every green hydrogen is equally “recognised” as green.

Although I work daily in hydrogen business development, it took me time to fully grasp how strongly regulatory logic differs from technological logic.

Hydrogen “boxes”

Hydrogen can be produced via multiple clean pathways. Yet the EU divides them into rigid categories:

  • RFNBO (most preferred),

  • RED II / RED III hydrogen,

  • other low-carbon technologies.

These categories determine:

  • access to subsidies,

  • quota eligibility,

  • economic feasibility.

RFNBO – the preferred pathway

Strict requirements:

  • additional renewable capacity,

  • temporal correlation,

  • geographical correlation,

  • over 70% emission savings.

In Central Europe, this is technically and economically challenging.

Electrolysers are designed for stable operation. Renewable intermittency creates structural inefficiencies.

RED II / III – broader definition

RED hydrogen can:

  • use biomass and biomethane,

  • operate 24/7,

  • achieve comparable emission savings,

  • reduce costs,

  • support circular economy models.

Technically strong. Economically rational.

Yet often politically marginalised.

The core problem

Hydrogen may be clean, low-carbon and affordable — but if it does not qualify as RFNBO, it does not count toward mandatory targets.

This creates regulatory distortions.

What would help?

Technological neutrality.

Regulation should define emission goals, not prescribe a single pathway.

Hydrogen should become part of a diversified technological mix — just like the broader energy system.

Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Business Development
✉️ info@hyconnect.eu
🌐 www.hyconnect.eu

by Kristýna Váchalová

Hydrogen Reality II: Green Hydrogen Is Not Always the Same. Why? And What Does It Mean for Decarbonisation?

When I heard the sentence “green hydrogen is not always green” a few weeks ago, it made me stop and think. I first encountered hydrogen around fifteen years ago at Daimler AG. Since then, I have repeatedly returned to the topic, and in recent years I have been working with it intensively in both the Czech and European context.

Despite this experience, I must admit that some concepts and connections related to the “greenness” of hydrogen are not intuitive at all. It is often unclear what these terms actually mean—and why certain hydrogen pathways are considered valuable while others are not, even if both can be low-emission or clean.

And I am certainly not alone. Confusion around what is green, renewable, low-carbon, RFNBO or RED-certified hydrogen is widespread across Europe. Although hydrogen is discussed more frequently than ever, many stakeholders struggle to understand why individual technologies fall into different regulatory categories—and what practical consequences this has.

This was the reason why I decided to start writing about this topic: simply, technically, and in an understandable way. For everyone who is dealing with decarbonisation in practice.

Who Is Dealing with Decarbonisation Today? Almost Everyone.

Hydrogen is no longer a niche topic for a small group of technology companies. It affects:

  • energy-intensive industries such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals,

  • logistics companies,

  • cities and regions,

  • the construction sector,

  • aviation and defence,

  • and many other sectors going forward.

Anyone with high emissions is facing the same question: How can fossil hydrogen or natural gas be replaced—and how can European regulatory requirements be met?

And this is where the challenge begins: green hydrogen is not always equally green.

The reason is not technological—but regulatory.

Different Categories of Hydrogen in EU Regulation

The European Commission defines several hydrogen categories that differ significantly from one another.

RFNBO – the “gold standard”

RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin) refers to hydrogen produced via electrolysis using exclusively renewable electricity.

To qualify as RFNBO, strict criteria must be met:

  • additionality of renewable electricity,

  • temporal correlation,

  • geographical correlation,

  • more than 70% greenhouse gas emission savings compared to fossil hydrogen.

As a result, RFNBO is extremely difficult to achieve in countries like the Czech Republic, where stable renewable electricity generation is limited.

RED II / RED III – a different logic

Under RED II and RED III, hydrogen can qualify as renewable if sustainability criteria, emission savings and feedstock origin requirements are fulfilled. Biomass-based pathways are explicitly allowed.

Hydrogen can be produced:

  • thermochemically from residual biomass,

  • from biomethane or biogas,

  • from waste streams that comply with RED sustainability rules.

Alternative low-emission hydrogen technologies

Beyond electrolysis and biomass, several other pathways exist:

  • methane pyrolysis,

  • partial oxidation of biomethane,

  • plasma technologies,

  • reforming with CCS,

  • waste gasification under RED conditions.

These technologies can significantly contribute to decarbonisation, even if they fall into different regulatory categories.

Why Does This Complicate Decarbonisation?

At the HyBaBo conference in Selb (Germany), I heard something that genuinely surprised me:

Companies prefer paying high penalties for missing RFNBO quotas rather than using cheaper, stable hydrogen compliant with RED II/III.

The reason was simple:

“Because it does not count towards the mandatory RFNBO target.”

This, despite the fact that RED-compliant hydrogen can be cheaper, locally produced, available 24/7 and have a very low carbon footprint.

This was a key realisation for me: technological reality and regulatory reality are currently diverging significantly in Europe.

What Is the Aim of This Series?

This series is intended to help those who feel lost in the growing complexity of regulations, acronyms and decarbonisation requirements—just as I once did before I began connecting the dots.

It is not meant to be an academic textbook or a finished guide. Instead, it is a process of exploration, explanation and sharing insights gathered through real projects, discussions and practical experience.

Above all, I want to contribute to ensuring that hydrogen becomes a real tool for decarbonisation—not just a regulatory checkbox.

Kristýna Váchalová
Hydrogen Business Development
✉️ info@hyconnect.eu
🌐 www.hyconnect.eu

by Kristýna Váchalová