Photo: iStock
6. Drivers, barriers and policy for hydrogen valleys in the Nordics
The initial phase of this part of the study involved creating an overview of a wide range of drivers, barriers and policy suggestions for advancing hydrogen production and the development of hydrogen valleys in the Nordics. This work was based on a broad literature review, referencing sources such as von Dalwigk et al.,
on Dalwigk, I., Söderbom, J., Ghaem, S., Vätgas för flexibelt och robust energisystem: En vätgasöversikt för Sverige i ett internationellt perspektiv. 2021.
Lara A., Peters D., Fichter T. Guidehouse. The role of gas and gas infrastructure in Swedish decarbonisation pathways 2020-2045. REPORT 2021:788. ISBN 978-91-7673-788-0.
Penrer, J., Bothe, D. International aspects of Power-to-X roadmap: A report prepared for the World Energy Council Germany. October 2018.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Policy recommendations to accelerate hydrogen deployment for a 1.5°C scenario. 2021.
The European hydrogen market landscape. November 2023.
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Observatory. Chapter 3. 2022 EU and National Policies Report.
These initial lists of drivers, barriers and policy suggestions were then used as a basis for discussions and inputs from workshop participants, in the stakeholder interviews and within the project team.
6.1 Drivers for the development of Nordic hydrogen valleys
6.1.1 Characterisation of potential drivers
The initial list of drivers was characterised and divided into eight areas, which are explained and elaborated on in more depth below. The areas are presented in order of overall perceived importance for the development of Nordic hydrogen valleys (see also next section).
Access to renewable energy production
While a key aspect for developing large-scale production and use of hydrogen is the access to large amounts of renewable electricity, access to other renewable energy value chains would favour development.
The Nordic countries already have vast renewable energy resources, particularly wind and hydroelectric power, which can be used to produce green hydrogen. Further, there is significant potential for expanding renewable electricity production, particularly with regard to onshore and offshore wind power. Several wind power projects are being planned in the Nordic countries, capitalising on the region’s favourable wind conditions, especially along the coasts and offshore. Another factor is the absence of feed-in tariffs (e.g. in Sweden and Finland), and this is advantageous for power-to-X applications where hydrogen plays a significant role. At the same time, there is strong competition for renewable energy from various industrial sectors, which are expected to increase their electricity demand. This increasing demand could compete with the electricity required for hydrogen production.
In relation to electricity prices on a European level (or even global scale), Nordic spot prices are generally low, which is favourable for the conversion of electricity into hydrogen. Finally, the Nordic countries, especially Sweden and Finland, have many industrial and district heating sites where biomass residues are used for large-scale combustion and where the generated CO2 (if captured) could be used as raw material to produce electrofuels.
Policy support
Since the transition to include hydrogen in the future energy system will result in added costs compared with “business as usual”, policy support for the funding of these projects will be an important driver.
In the Nordics, there are several national and Nordic support programmes for hydrogen/decarbonisation technologies. National initiatives include a Danish support programme for green industry, as well as the Climate Leap (Klimatklivet)
- Proposals to set targets for the uptake of renewable hydrogen in industry and transport by 2030
- The Recovery and Resilience Facility for clean energy (to end dependence on Russian fossil fuels)
- Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) on hydrogen
- The Clean Hydrogen Partnership
- The Renewable Energy Directive
In addition to funding specifically aimed at hydrogen, the availability of more general funding and policy measures for the energy transition may also contribute to driving development. These include:
- EU ETS (Emission Trading System)
- CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism for CO2), which adds carbon taxes on e.g. imported good such as steel, fertilisers and cement
- The European Hydrogen Bank
- Clean Energy Transition Partnership
- Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
- EU Innovation Funds
- Funding through European partnerships that focus on transport, such as Clean Aviation and Zero Emission Waterborne Transport
Industry presence and ambitions
To realise a large-scale transition towards increased use of hydrogen, there is a need for industrial stakeholders in relevant sectors with high ambitions related to the transition.
In the Nordics, several industries have a clear need to decarbonise and limited availability to other options. Examples include steel production, refineries and petrochemical industries with defined ambitions to implement hydrogen in their future value chains. In addition, it is expected that there will be a significant demand for hydrogen-based fuels, such as methanol and ammonia, in the shipping sector. Further, a broad range of industrial stakeholders and customers have ambitions to decarbonise their value chains, creating opportunities to pay a certain premium for carbon-free products further up or down the value chain. This willingness to invest could facilitate investments in new hydrogen projects. More recently, it has become clear that some stakeholders are demanding their entire value chain to be CO2 neutral. The Nordic countries also have several industries with experience producing and using hydrogen (e.g. refineries and the petrochemical industry). Increasing demand would be a driver for the development of infrastructure (production/storage/distribution) for hydrogen, which would in turn support the general establishment of hydrogen valleys.
Finally, collaborations and strategic partnerships between industrial actors could drive co-innovation and enable the sharing of expertise and risks (e.g. between supplier and producer). Such collaboration would also involve work to harmonise regulations, sharing best practices and collaborating on cross-border infrastructure projects between the Nordic countries.
Access to potential off-takers of excess heat and oxygen
Transitioning to hydrogen production would also increase access to excess heat and oxygen as by-products. Consequently, access to users of these by-products is a significant driver for development.
The Nordic countries have extensive district heating networks, which could be a key enabler for finding uses for excess heat from hydrogen production processes, as well as industries that use large volumes of oxygen (e.g. for bleaching at pulp and paper plants and for steel production processes).
Several other initiatives are also being investigated in the Nordics, including aquaculture (fish/shrimp) and vegetable production in greenhouses, which could have an increasing role as potential off-takers for the by-products of hydrogen production.
Support from local communities and local energy systems
Support at the local level can also be an important driver for development. Here, distributed generation of hydrogen and electrofuels would have the potential to support local hydrogen value chains and the local and regional electricity grid. Further, local support tends to increase for projects that can provide job opportunities, possible tax revenues for municipalities and overall strengthening of local economies and investments.
Technological innovation
Increasing performance and reducing cost would be key enablers for global and Nordic hydrogen projects. The Nordic countries have many companies involved in R&D efforts that aim to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of hydrogen production, storage and utilisation technologies (fuel cells, gas turbines etc.). Cost reductions can also be expected as a result of increased use of key hydrogen technologies, such as electrolysers.
Limitations of the electricity grid
Difficulties in co-locating electricity production sites with consumers could drive the production of hydrogen as an energy carrier (Power-to-X-concepts) in the vicinity of production sites, e.g. offshore wind farms. Hydrogen production could also offer flexibility in electricity utilisation by e.g. operating electrolysers based on the electricity spot price or grid limitations, thereby supporting local, regional or national power systems.
Energy security
Given that power used for hydrogen production is produced from regionally or nationally available renewable sources, hydrogen could increase self-sufficiency in terms of energy supply, increase energy security and contribute to a more robust energy system. In addition, hydrogen is storable and can thus serve as a backup energy supply. Conversion from electricity to hydrogen does, however, imply substantial energy losses, and hydrogen is not always the best alternative to provide this backup energy. Evaluations, determining the system level impact from using hydrogen, must be made on a case-by-case basis.
There are also opportunities for developing production capacity to export hydrogen to other parts of Europe, especially since the Nordic countries are generally regarded as uncomplicated trade partners. For areas such as Greenland/Iceland, where it is challenging to transfer electricity to neighbouring countries, hydrogen export could be particularly interesting.
6.1.2 Primary drivers according to stakeholders
At the workshop, the eight areas above were presented to and ranked by the participants (apart from support from local communities, which was added after the workshop). The results are presented below. It should be noted that several of the factors are linked to each other and several of these are dependent on each other, which makes ranking difficult in general.
Figure 17. Results from the ranking based on the question “How do you rank the following list of drivers for the Nordic hydrogen valleys?” at the workshop on 18 April 2024 (12 votes).
The workshop participants considered access to renewable energy the most important factor for establishing Nordic hydrogen valleys. This factor is considered important both at the Nordic level and in more localised contexts, where proximity to energy production plays a crucial role in facilitating access energy and driving down costs. This also pertains to the proximity of hydrogen off-taker, which is essential for creating a sustainable value chain. Additionally, the consensus from both the workshop and the interviews was that the key driver is either policy support (especially at the EU level) or the industries’ ambitions to decarbonise their activities. Apart from industry, which is explicitly included in the ranking above, the need and interest to decarbonise the transport sector was mentioned by several interviewees as a key driver for many of the hydrogen projects in the Nordic countries. This includes a push towards fuels such as e-SAF and e-methanol for aviation and shipping, respectively.
Both the workshop participants and the interviewees regarded access to potential off-takers of excess heat and oxygen as moderately important. Several interviewees pointed out that the business case did not currently seem to be significantly influenced by this factor. However, one interviewee mentioned that this factor could be significantly underestimated, since overall system efficiency could be an essential aspect of creating local synergies with other stakeholders in the area. This could facilitate industrial symbiosis initiatives, which are not just linked to hydrogen, and thus broader public support for hydrogen valleys. Some interviewees also mentioned the potential for using electrolysers for additional services (e.g. ancillary services for the grid, heat and oxygen) as an added value and potential driver.
One example of the interdependence between factors can be taken from the first three ranked factors in the workshop. Support from national governments and the EU has a major influence on both the short-term and long-term market conditions for stakeholders involved in developing renewable energy production and decarbonising their own activities. Examples of this include handling conflicts between local and national interests and creating support schemes to enable this transition (which in many areas require additional support to enable first movers). Better policy support in general lowers the risks for stakeholders involved in developing renewable energy production and industry stakeholders involved in the transition to hydrogen as a means of decarbonisation. The interviewees had slightly different opinions on the importance of policy support to lower this risk, which naturally influenced their individual rankings.
Several interviewees noted that while the Nordic countries share many similarities, there are also distinct differences in the overall drivers influencing each country’s development of hydrogen projects. One opinion is that Denmark and Norway are more export-oriented in general. Denmark has a special focus on converting electricity from wind power assets to hydrogen and electrofuels for export. Norway is highly motivated to facilitate the export of mainly blue hydrogen. For countries with a strong focus on export, bilateral agreements and cross-border standardisation of hydrogen and electrofuels are especially important. Sweden, Finland and Iceland are more focused on supplying hydrogen to their own industries and other sectors with potential to utilise hydrogen. Another interviewee saw similarities between Norway, Iceland and Finland in terms of their focus on the direct use of hydrogen, whereas Sweden and Denmark tend to have a greater tendency towards the production of electrofuels. This sentiment was not confirmed by the project mapping (Chapter 3), which identified several projects targeting hydrogen derivatives (electrofuels and chemicals).
Other aspects mentioned as drivers for Nordic hydrogen valleys by at least one of the interviewees were:
- Access to logistical hubs and proximity to other stakeholders with a potential demand for hydrogen. Here, ports were considered especially important, based on connections to different modes of transportation.
- Local access to clean water (which is especially relevant for electrolysers), which limits the need for desalination of salt water.
One interviewee considered limitations in the local power grid to be a barrier for the development of hydrogen valleys, since investments in hydrogen should not be seen as a tool to get around limitations in the power grid.
Further, the importance of energy security as a potential driver for hydrogen valleys was considered especially relevant for more isolated areas such as islands with limited connections to other areas (such as Iceland).
6.2 Barriers for the formation of Nordic hydrogen valleys
6.2.1 Characterisation of potential barriers
The initial list of barriers was characterised and divided into five areas, which are explained and elaborated on in more depth below. The areas are presented in order of overall perceived importance for the development of Nordic hydrogen valleys (see also next section).
Project business case
A key barrier for the development of hydrogen valleys and hydrogen projects in general is the project’s overall business case. Challenges with the business case include the hydrogen price and technical maturity, as well as overall risk and uncertainty.
Current production technologies, which are based on electricity as input (mainly with electrolysers), are at present more expensive than the state-of-the-art production technologies based on natural gas. This is the case even though electricity prices are generally lower in the Nordics than in the rest of Europe. Further, the spot price is pushed upwards by high European gas prices, due to the geopolitical situation, for example. One possible consequence of hydrogen prices (or the prices of products derived from hydrogen) being excessively high is that fossil-based production processes may remain competitive in the longer term, which would be devastating for development.
The technical maturity of key technologies is limited, resulting in high initial costs and a high risk of first-mover disadvantage, thus complicating the value chain. This includes electrolysers as well as the storage and distribution of hydrogen. To develop hydrogen valleys, achieving scale is a key condition. However, the scale-up period presents numerous challenges.
Key areas of uncertainty include the political strategies, priorities and ambition levels, as well as the development of EU ETS and natural gas prices, making the investment environment difficult to navigate. There is a general lack of national hydrogen strategies to support development on a local/regional level, which may be due to insufficient top-down national policies. In addition, current support schemes may be misaligned. For instance, while there is considerable support for developing hydrogen refuelling stations, there is less support for hydrogen production for these stations or for the adoption of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.
As a result, risk-sharing mechanisms are likely necessary. There are many stakeholders involved, which indicates a need for formalised commitments from various counterparts (producer/user/distributor). Since multiple stakeholders must make investment decisions, there is also a natural time delay. This can be seen as the chicken-and-egg problem, where demand is needed to incentivise production.
One factor linking several of the examples above is timing.
Regulatory environment
The regulatory environment impacts the overall business case but can also be a barrier (or driver) for development.
In general, the Nordic countries have limited regulatory and institutional knowledge related to hydrogen, compared with e.g. more gas-heavy EU countries. Authorities lack permitting experience on the municipal or regional level, which could create new challenges when use is scaled up and projects may include hydrogen storage above or below ground.
Lengthy and unpredictable regulatory review processes for building production and distribution infrastructure, such as the process for obtaining permits to transmit electricity offshore, are an additional barrier. Based on current legislation, there are often limited opportunities to proactively plan and build infrastructure for electricity and gas. Further, the regulatory environment is not adapted to facilitate sector coupling and related business models, especially for decentralised systems.
Another regulatory area, that may become a barrier is safety regulations related to hydrogen production, storage and pipelines, which may be either inadequate and overly strict.
Finally, there may be limitations in the funding schemes that impact development. One example can be found in Sweden, where, since February 2023, the Climate Leap (Klimatklivet) funding scheme has required the electricity to be produced from renewable sources (zero carbon footprint) for the entire lifetime of the plant. This can be difficult to achieve in some electricity areas in Sweden, such as SE3 and SE4, where some fossil resources are used to support the grid.
Lack of local energy supply and infrastructure
A significant barrier is the lack of available electricity grid capacity, which in many cases limits the possibility to add local production. There can also be significant competition for grid capacity (e.g. Fertiberia in Luleå, as mentioned above). The intermittency of renewable energy may add to these grid challenges. Although the Nordics host significant renewable energy production, it is intermittent in nature, and managing variations is a key challenge.
The barrier of infrastructure development in the Nordics is also related to current gas grid coverage, the lack of operating hydrogen refuelling stations and the lack of available natural geological formations for large-scale hydrogen storage in most of the Nordic countries (with Denmark being an exception, where hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being developed in e.g. the Green Hydrogen Hub project
Access to skills, material and workforce
A general barrier to a large-scale societal transition is the availability of competence and material resources. For hydrogen valleys, knowledge gaps in parts of the value chain (e.g. for purchasers of services or on a local level), may become an obstacle to development. Another aspect is that, while safety procedures and standards are well known within industry, they are otherwise lacking in the workforce.
Certain materials required to produce hydrogen, e.g. in electrolysers, can be difficult to obtain in sufficiently large quantities. This can include rare earth metals, which are needed in many transition technologies and for which demand is increasing rapidly. In a rapidly growing market, the Nordics could face challenges in sourcing technology suppliers.
Local support
The development of hydrogen valleys must consider not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sentiments, especially related to the construction of large-scale energy generation and transmission projects. This is a challenge, especially at the local and regional level.
6.2.2 Primary barriers according to stakeholders
At the workshop, the following list of five factors was presented to and ranked by the participants. The results are presented below.
Figure 18. Results from the ranking based on the question “How do you rank the following list of barriers for the Nordic hydrogen valleys?” at the workshop on 18 April 2024 (12 votes).
The overall project business case and the regulatory environment were regarded as the primary barriers for the development of Nordic hydrogen valleys by the workshop participants. Just as for the presented list of drivers, the barriers are interdependent, which makes the ranking difficult. In discussions with the interviewees, it was clear that the likelihood of some of the factors was small but with potentially devastating consequences for hydrogen projects. An example of this can be NIMBY sentiments related to wind power projects or regulatory aspects that could potentially completely disrupt the energy supply to a hydrogen project (high consequence); assessing the likelihood of this happening is therefore especially important. A related aspect discussed with several of the interviewees was which stakeholders should assume the risks related to developing Nordic hydrogen valleys. One of the key conclusions from these discussions was that, to create clear market conditions, it is crucial to have risk sharing mechanisms in place and remove as much uncertainty as possible (e.g. through political action).
It is also relevant to point out the competition between establishing a hydrogen value chain within the Nordics and outside the region (or the EU), as this may pose a potential barrier. One interviewee noted that the hydrogen required for decarbonisation in the Nordic countries could potentially be sourced from Australia, where ammonia could be shipped to the region, converted back to hydrogen through cracking and then transported to the user. The value chain and thus the origin of the hydrogen will be driven by the cost of production and distribution to the user, and it is not certain that the cost-optimal solution is local hydrogen production in the Nordic countries even though (as pointed out earlier) there is good access to renewable energy production.
Technological neutrality is another aspect which was brought up in the interviews as important for creating a long-term, sustainable market for electrification and hydrogen projects. If this is not achieved, there is a risk of lock-in effects associated with certain technologies that may prove too costly in the future. The need to focus on technological neutrality relates to both national level and EU level. One interviewee described the United States as a good example of having a system that prioritises the overall goal of hydrogen production volume, rather than focusing on specific technologies used to achieve it.
There is clearly an important link between the development of both hydrogen and electricity infrastructure to develop the Nordic hydrogen valleys. Interviewees identified specific barriers related to this issue, including access to local power and lengthy permit processes for expanding the electricity grid and industrial projects. One interviewee pointed out that Finland can serve as a good example in terms of its ongoing process to create a “one-stop-shop principle” to streamline and speed up the permitting processes for industrial projects.
In general, the interviewees believed that there is enough knowledge on hydrogen and its potential role in the value chain and that the technology required to develop Nordic hydrogen valleys is present. The challenge is rather the business case. This can be improved both through measures that stimulate the use of hydrogen and by impeding the use of other energy sources such as natural gas, coal, diesel or LPG. This can be achieved both by measures that impact the market price and by regulations that restrict the use of carbon-containing fuels. Several interviewees pointed out that the price of fossil fuels in relation to hydrogen is currently too low.
An additional barrier pointed out by one of the interviewees related to organisational structures, where support for hydrogen projects might be good in one area (for example R&D) but at the same time lacking in another (sales). This disparity negatively impacts the development of hydrogen valleys.
Other barriers mentioned included the lack of standards related to the transport of hydrogen gas via offshore pipelines and that the size of the stakeholder (in terms of financial and human capital) has a major influence on handling risks related to developing hydrogen projects, with major stakeholders in a significantly better position to follow through with these projects.
6.3 Policy suggestions to support Nordic hydrogen valleys
6.3.1 Characterisation of potential policy measures
The workshop and the interviews clear indicate that there are multiple ways to support the development of Nordic hydrogen valleys. The various types of measures can be grouped in the following three areas:
Policy – Broad strategic direction: Overarching guidelines or principles established by governments/organisations to guide decision-making and action in a particular area. In the context of hydrogen, energy or environmental policies, this may include goals, targets and strategies for promoting the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier or addressing related issues such as emissions reduction or energy security. These policies often set the direction for legislative and regulatory action.
Legislation – Specific legal requirements: Legislation refers to laws enacted by a legislative body, such as a parliament or congress. Legislative measures related to hydrogen may include laws that provide funding or incentives for hydrogen research, development and deployment, establish regulatory frameworks for hydrogen production, distribution and use, or mandate certain actions or standards related to hydrogen technology or infrastructure. Legislation can vary widely between countries and regions, depending on their legal and political systems and priorities.
Standards – Technical specifications: Standards are technical specifications or guidelines developed by standards-setting organisations or industry bodies to ensure consistency, interoperability, safety and quality in products, processes or services. In the context of hydrogen, standards may cover various aspects such as hydrogen production methods, storage technologies, transport, refuelling stations, safety protocols and environmental performance. Adherence to standards can help facilitate the widespread adoption of hydrogen technologies by providing assurance of reliability and compatibility.
The tables below present lists of potential measures for each group, also indicating the level at which the decision can mainly be influenced (local/national/Nordic/EU/international).
All levels | Co-plan electricity and gas infrastructure to find potential synergies between electricity and gas grids to enable proactive grid development. |
EU | Support the implementation of CU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) where carbon emission costs should be imposed on the import of goods, including steel, cement and electricity. |
National/Nordic/EU | Stimulate alignment at a regional/national level through bilateral or multilateral partnerships to facilitate trade with hydrogen internationally. |
National/EU | Define a shadow carbon price or social cost of carbon that helps governments allocate funds to accelerate deployment of clean energy technologies, including hydrogen. |
Create new models for the market to finance investments in new hydrogen infrastructure (not just refuelling stations). | |
National/Nordic | Incorporate hydrogen into the Nordic countries’ decarbonisation strategies to define targets for hydrogen production and utilisation, including e.g. specific use of hydrogen/electrofuels in the transport sector and green electricity production (on/offshore wind power). Further, collaborate to align these strategies at the Nordic level. |
National | Provide long-term agreements within the political landscape to remove uncertainties related to future subsidies/taxes on electricity/hydrogen production. |
Develop tests of market designs in regulatory sand pits before common implementation. Areas with bottlenecks in the electricity grid could be seen as especially interesting. | |
Improve support schemes for both supply and demand side related to the use of hydrogen use in heavy-duty transport. One example from a Swedish perspective is that there is significant support for establishing hydrogen refuelling stations, while at the same time, there are limited support schemes for the demand side. | |
Define a coordinating body to simplify partnerships (public/private), which can be used to close investment and operational gaps and prioritise the biggest impact on GHG emissions. | |
Local/National | Define an internal carbon price to influence decision making in companies and authorities. |
Support early-stage projects that could kickstart the formation of hydrogen hubs and where it is possible to synchronise and co-locate production and demand through capital expenditure subsidies, loans/financial guarantees, public investments, contracts for difference, facilitate long term off-take contracts etc. Doing so can better secure stability and predictability for future revenue streams. | |
Implement a programme to inform and educate the public on hydrogen and its benefits and risks, to achieve public support. This can be used to raise awareness among end-users and relevant stakeholders in the future hydrogen value chain. | |
National/EU | Define supportive tax regulations to decarbonise energy and avoid the risk of “double” taxation because of energy conversion from one energy carrier to another. |
Set up clear, long-term market rules for hydrogen generation, transport, utilisation and related issues. | |
National | Define requirements for national agencies to purchase fossil-free transport services in the future to facilitate the right conditions to switch to decarbonised fuels (regardless of whether it is hydrogen or something else). |
Provide support to decision makers involved in national, regional and local permitting processes for adding new decarbonised production and distribution of hydrogen and electricity, with a view to reducing lead times. | |
Adjust current legislation that is not adapted to new types of fuels. One example is the Swedish Energy Taxation Act (1994:1776), which is based on the EU’s Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) from 2003. This results in the use of hydrogen being taxed when used in a combustion engine in a vehicle or on a ship but not when used in a fuel cell. | |
EU/international | Adopt a global, verifiable methodology that can define origin, quality and life cycle of GHG emissions from hydrogen. This would improve transparency and enable consumers to make well-informed decisions. Certification schemes for other commodities could be used as inspiration. |
Update and harmonise hydrogen regulations and standards related to the entire hydrogen value chain. This includes adopting international standards and enabling the removal of limitations that could inhibit the repurposing of existing natural gas installations for example and make blending possible. The harmonisation of standards is especially important to facilitate the transport of hydrogen across borders. | |
6.3.2 Most important policy measures according to stakeholders
The results from the ranking exercise at the workshop related to different policy suggestions are presented in Figure 19. Note that a different grouping of suggestions was used.
Figure 19. Results from the ranking based on the question “How do you rank the following suggestions for policy changes to support Nordic hydrogen valleys?” at the workshop on 18 April 2024 (4 votes).
The workshop participants who responded to this question generally agreed that the policy suggestions should be particularly focused on developing a hydrogen market and on defining long-term strategies and roadmaps on a national/regional level. They considered the need to support R&D to be less important. It should be noted that the number of respondents was lower for this part of the workshop, which makes it more difficult to draw more general conclusions. However, the result presented in Figure 19 was also confirmed during the expert interviews.
There were some common themes throughout all interviews, including the need for financial support for hydrogen projects, which related to the entire value chain (energy supply, hydrogen production, hydrogen distribution infrastructure and utilisation). There was also consensus that hydrogen projects that are actually realised play an important role in showing that it is possible to develop large-scale Nordic hydrogen value chains for different sectors. It was also highlighted that there is still a significant window of opportunity to develop Nordic hydrogen valleys, but that this development is threatened by several factors. Examples include competition with other regions, the current business case in relation to other options and a lack of sufficient funding schemes and legislation.
There were also several interesting differences in the responses. Some examples are presented below:
- The interviewees had differing views on the importance of national hydrogen strategies. Some considered them to be a crucial overall message, while others placed greater emphasis on the strategies defined by the EU. Interviewees also noted that a key driver is industry ambitions to establish a fossil-free value chain, which is expected to accelerate the shift towards hydrogen and other renewable energy carriers.
- The interviewees placed varying importance on “hydrogen-specific” policies versus general policies based on technological neutrality, with a view to increasing the cost of CO2 emissions.
- There were also conflicting opinions on the need for hydrogen production support versus the need for support on the demand side. Several interviewees pointed out the importance of not focusing too much on hydrogen refuelling infrastructure, but rather on hydrogen production itself. The idea is that this would facilitate local access to hydrogen and reduce the purchase price for hydrogen. Others believed that the focus should rather be on financially supporting the stakeholders that could use hydrogen in the future.
- One interviewee considered public acceptance as one of the most important factors, in contrast to most other respondents. This was mainly based on the fact that local residents living near potential hydrogen valleys play a crucial role in the success of these projects.
One interviewee also questioned the overall importance of a policy framework. It was pointed out that, for some of the countries that appear to have a strong push towards developing hydrogen projects, this cannot be explained by a successfully developed policy framework but rather other factors. One example mentioned was Spain, which had by far the most bids (around 2.9 GWe of the total capacity of 8.35 GWe) in the European Hydrogen Bank pilot auction.