Europe’s hydrogen pipeline is growing on paper faster than it is on the ground. While gigawatt-scale electrolyzer announcements and national hydrogen strategies continue to dominate headlines, deployment timelines are slipping, permitting queues are lengthening, and investment decisions are being deferred.
At H2MEET, Bronkhorst’s Peter Brouwer and JK Lee redirected the discussion toward a less visible but structurally decisive constraint: the intersection of measurement capability, regulatory readiness, and political commitment.
WATCH THE INTERVIEW HERE
That shift in focus exposes a widening gap between hydrogen ambition and execution. Production targets assume technical readiness, regulatory clarity, and market stability that, in many regions, do not yet exist.
Hydrogen production today remains anchored in alkaline and PEM electrolysis, technologies that are commercially mature but constrained by efficiency and operational flexibility. Solid oxide electrolysis is increasingly positioned as the next efficiency step, particularly for integration with industrial heat and baseload power. Yet readiness remains the limiting factor. Commercial-scale deployment before 2030 is uncertain, placing pressure on policy frameworks that implicitly rely on technologies still moving through validation and early demonstration phases.
This mismatch matters because infrastructure planning is already being locked in. Electrolyzer capacity, grid connections, and hydrogen offtake agreements are being designed around assumptions that may not hold within current timelines. When technical maturity lags policy ambition, risk shifts downstream, to project developers, suppliers, and public authorities tasked with approving assets they are not yet equipped to regulate.
The contrast with Korea is instructive. Rather than prioritizing domestic green hydrogen production, Korea’s strategy centers on end use: transport, fueling infrastructure, and hydrogen derivatives such as ammonia. Structural constraints drive that choice. Limited domestic renewable capacity makes large-scale local hydrogen production impractical, increasing reliance on imports and carriers. As a result, system reliability, flow accuracy, and safety certification take precedence over production volume.
This emphasis reframes the technical challenge. As hydrogen moves across borders and through complex supply chains, measurement accuracy becomes a core system requirement. High-flow, high-pressure hydrogen streams, often containing water vapor or impurities, demand instrumentation capable of operating reliably under hazardous conditions. Measurement errors at this stage propagate through the value chain, affecting safety margins, commercial settlements, and regulatory compliance.
Bronkhorst’s role in this context is upstream but consequential. Flow control and measurement sit at the interface between research, industrialization, and deployment. Without validated instruments, neither electrolyzer development nor fueling infrastructure can progress beyond controlled environments.
Regulation remains the most uneven variable. In Europe, hydrogen-specific regulatory frameworks are still fragmented. Local authorities, often lacking technical guidance, default to conservative interpretations of existing gas or chemical regulations. Project delays frequently stem not from identified safety failures, but from institutional uncertainty. In practice, this slows permitting, increases development costs, and amplifies public risk perception around hydrogen.
Korea’s regulatory environment, while not fully harmonized, offers greater predictability. Explosion-proof certification aligned with international standards is already embedded in deployment requirements, reducing ambiguity for equipment suppliers and infrastructure developers. The difference is not regulatory strictness, but regulatory completeness.
Political signals are adding another layer of volatility. Across parts of Europe, policy focus is shifting toward short-term energy affordability amid economic and geopolitical pressures. As priorities recalibrate, long-term hydrogen targets risk losing enforcement momentum. The consequence is not outright policy reversal, but strategic drift; targets remain, while enabling conditions erode.
For technology providers, this creates an asymmetrical risk profile. Investment decisions must be made years ahead of market certainty, while demand depends heavily on government follow-through. Measurement and control technologies, which must anticipate future operating conditions, are particularly exposed to this uncertainty.
Asked which regions are building the most realistic hydrogen infrastructure, Brouwer and Lee pointed toward East Asia. China, Korea, and Japan are advancing projects with fewer regulatory delays and clearer execution pathways. The advantage lies less in technological superiority than in institutional alignment.
