In the quest for a sustainable future, hydrogen has emerged as a critical player, and at its heart are electrolysers. These devices, capable of transforming water into hydrogen, are pivotal in the race toward a net-zero world. While Europe has been at the forefront of green industrial policy, the United States is gearing up to potentially take the lead in shaping the future of electrolyser manufacturing.
As of 2023, electrolyser manufacturing remains in its infancy. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that by 2030, US, Chinese, and European manufacturers will dominate the global market. But who will seize the crown?
Europe, known for its stringent standards in renewable hydrogen production, boasts world-class electrolyser technology. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, the lobby chief of Hydrogen Europe, attests to the quality of European electrolysers, stating, “EU electrolysers are among the best in the world.”
However, concerns arose when European electrolyser manufacturers warned that China and the US posed serious competition. Notably, the first electrolyser project with components from China has already been installed in Europe, signaling the growing threat.
The electrolyser landscape is marked by three competing technologies: Alkaline, Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM), and Solid Oxide Cell electrolysers. Alkaline electrolysers are cost-effective but require uninterrupted operation. PEM electrolysers, although more expensive, offer flexibility. Solid oxide cell electrolysers rely on high-temperature waste heat for efficiency.
China has embraced Alkaline electrolysers, known for their affordability. In contrast, Europe has favored the pricier yet versatile PEM electrolysers.
The future of the electrolyser industry may pivot on US regulations. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) positions the US as a potential hydrogen production leader, offering subsidies of up to $3 per kg of hydrogen—a game-changer for market viability. Unlike electric vehicles, there are no “Made in America” clauses tied to these hydrogen subsidies.
However, the decision on production standards is pending, and Washington’s choice will influence the industry’s fate. Will the US adopt a standard similar to the EU’s, favoring flexible electrolysers, or opt for a different path?
The US Treasury is expected to provide crucial guidance on accounting rules for clean hydrogen. This decision will have far-reaching implications. Some US companies argue that aligning with EU standards would stifle growth, while environmentalists insist on strict rules to prevent renewable electricity waste.
Europe stands to gain if US rules align with its own, granting European companies a technological edge. They have been fine-tuning their products for flexibility to meet EU regulations. Conversely, lax US rules could favor cheap but inflexible Chinese electrolysers.
As the regulatory battle unfolds, new research questions the climate impact of stringent hydrogen regulation. Some argue that Europe’s hourly matching of renewables to hydrogen production sacrifices economic efficiency. It may lead to overcapacity investments, taxing businesses and taxpayers subsidizing the industry.
Studies in Germany suggest that green hydrogen without hourly matching does not necessarily increase power sector emissions, potentially yielding cost savings.
The future of electrolyser manufacturing hangs in the balance, awaiting the US Treasury’s guidance and its repercussions on the evolving hydrogen landscape.
