Hydrogen: The means to sustain a bridge

Hydrogen has come to the fore of EU energy policy. The European Commission and a number of Member States have published or are developing hydrogen strategies, while actors in the sector have also seized the opportunity to trailblaze the path of what may be the “next” dominant source of energy. Experts have, however, questioned whether hydrogen is the best option to pursue to meet demand in difficult to electrify applications. Many anticipate the exorbitant costs of the technology to decline as it scales, but inefficiencies stemming from converting energy to and from hydrogen alongside the vast investment in infrastructure that the shift necessitates leads us to argue that the push for hydrogen is deeply political. We propose the hypothesis that the EU’s support for hydrogen is (geo)political. This relies on two pillars: the fossil fuel industry and nation-states reliant on fossil fuel revenues. There is a push from the natural gas industry to promote the continued exploitation of their resource by steering the EU to adopt methane-based – potentially decarbonised – hydrogen. A geopolitical consideration is closely interlinked with this rationale, namely, to maintain close trade-based ties with suppliers, most prominently Russia. European states and Russia have established close trade ties that are heavily reliant on the trade of hydrocarbons, of which natural gas’ trade has been a key force for integration between the two regions. While rising nationalism and isolationism has splintered the globalised world order it has had limited impact on trade flows between these two regions, but the energy transition in the EU poses a source of substantial disruption. Since natural gas-based ties took off in the 1970s, they have taken on the role of a stabiliser in the tumultuous relations between the regions – a sort of bridge. Europe’s ties with neighbouring Russia have been continuously interlaced with mutual animosity and belligerence, but the EU has a strategic interest in maintaining the stability in its neighbourhood. Sustaining natural gas-based trade sustains this puffer, dampening the blows from conflicts which may otherwise escalate. We propose that it is of strategic interest for the EU to maintain natural gas-based trade with its neighbour in the foreseeable future. This is both a gift and a curse since it does not allow for the EU to focus all its attention on renewables and electrification, which could also be coupled with energy self-sufficiency. However, it also buys Member States time to execute their energy transition. The EU could continue to rely on decarbonised natural gas (if methane leaks are kept in check) consumed in the form of hydrogen in forthcoming years, which can be the gateway to shifting to renewable-based hydrogen. However, what this case underscores is the deeply political nature of the energy transition and its wide-ranging ramifications on regional relations.