The Green Hydrogen Reckoning: An Analysis of Project Cancellations and the Path to a Viable Market

I. Executive Summary

The global green hydrogen sector, after a period of intense hype and soaring expectations, is undergoing a profound and painful market recalibration. The years 2023 through mid-2025 have been marked by an unprecedented wave of project cancellations, indefinite postponements, and significant scaling-back of ambitions by a wide array of global energy majors, industrial giants, and pure-play developers. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this trend, cataloguing the specific projects that have been halted and deconstructing the complex web of factors driving this global slowdown.

The evidence points not to a single cause, but to a convergence of powerful headwinds that have systematically undermined the viability of a large portion of the announced project pipeline. The analysis identifies five primary drivers of this market correction:

1. Prohibitive Economics: The foundational assumption of rapidly declining costs for green hydrogen production has collided with a harsh reality of cost inflation. Production costs have remained stubbornly high, often increasing, creating a "green premium" that few industrial offtakers are willing or able to bear.
2. The Offtake Impasse: A critical failure to secure bankable, long-term offtake agreements has emerged as the single greatest cause of project mortality. A structural "chicken-or-egg" dilemma—where developers cannot secure financing without buyers, and buyers will not commit to expensive, non-existent supply—has paralyzed the market.
3. Crippling Policy Uncertainty: While government incentives spurred initial optimism, subsequent delays in rulemaking, complex eligibility criteria, and significant political risk regarding the longevity of these policies have created a climate of uncertainty that is toxic to long-term, capital-intensive investments.
4. Infrastructure and Systemic Bottlenecks: Projects have been stymied by critical, non-hydrogen-specific constraints, including multi-year queues for grid connections and a fundamental lack of midstream infrastructure for hydrogen transport and storage.
5. Technological and Execution Risks: The industry's focus on scaling electrolyzer manufacturing outpaced the development of the broader ecosystem, creating a "cart before the horse" scenario and exposing the execution risks of integrating these complex systems.

This report concludes that the current downturn does not represent an existential crisis for green hydrogen. Rather, it is a severe but necessary market correction—a classic "valley of disillusionment" following a peak of inflated expectations. This phase is purging the market of speculative and economically unviable projects, forcing a shift toward greater realism. The projects that are proceeding offer a clear blueprint for future success: they are typically integrated with guaranteed industrial offtakers, located in industrial hubs to pool demand, and benefit from strong, certain government de-risking mechanisms.

Moving forward, the strategic imperative for all stakeholders is to address the core market failure exposed by this downturn. The industry and its backers must pivot from a purely supply-push strategy, which has proven insufficient, to a robust demand-pull model. For policymakers, this means creating certainty, implementing binding demand-side mandates, and proactively funding enabling infrastructure. For investors and developers, it demands a new era of pragmatism, focusing on de-risked, economically resilient projects in the specific hard-to-abate sectors where green hydrogen holds a true, defensible value proposition.

II. The Great Recalibration: A Global Catalogue of Halted Green Hydrogen Projects

The period from 2023 to mid-2025 will be remembered as a turning point for the green hydrogen industry—a moment when speculative ambition collided with commercial reality. Across the globe, a cascade of project cancellations, postponements, and significant downward revisions has swept through the sector, affecting not just small, speculative ventures but flagship, giga-scale projects backed by the world's largest energy and industrial corporations.This wave of attrition is not a collection of isolated incidents but a systemic market event, revealing deep-seated structural challenges that were papered over during the preceding years of hype.  

The sheer breadth of the companies involved underscores the systemic nature of the problem. Established energy supermajors like BP, Shell, and Equinor; leading utilities such as Iberdrola and Repsol; industrial behemoths like ArcelorMittal; and dedicated hydrogen pioneers including Fortescue and Hy Stor Energy have all been forced to retreat from major commitments.This cross-sectoral pullback signals that the challenges are not confined to a single business model or geographic region but are fundamental to the current state of the hydrogen market.  

Particularly telling is the cancellation of projects that had already passed a Final Investment Decision (FID). An FID represents the point of maximum financial commitment, where project sponsors and financiers have completed due diligence and are prepared to deploy billions in capital. The decision by Fortescue to abandon its 80 MW Arizona Hydrogen project and its 50 MW PEM50 project in Australia after reaching FID in late 2023 is a stark indicator of a catastrophic deterioration in perceived viability.Similarly, when a major industrial gas supplier like Air Products, which possesses deep expertise in hydrogen markets, determines that it is preferable to incur a $3.1 billion cost for contract breakage and asset write-downs rather than complete its planned green hydrogen projects, it sends a powerful and chilling signal to the entire market. 

This phenomenon creates a contagion of lost confidence. When credible, leading firms publicly walk away from their most advanced projects, it validates the fears of financiers, potential offtakers, and other developers. It raises the perceived risk profile for all remaining projects, making lenders more cautious, buyers more hesitant to sign long-term contracts, and policymakers more skeptical. The result is a negative feedback loop where each cancellation makes the next one more likely, contributing to the "Great Stall" that has come to define the sector.

The following table provides a non-exhaustive but representative catalogue of the major green hydrogen projects that have been cancelled, postponed, or significantly scaled back between 2023 and mid-2025, illustrating the global scale of this market recalibration.

III. Anatomy of a Cancellation: Deconstructing the Commercial, Policy, and Technical Headwinds

The widespread project attrition catalogued in the previous section is not the result of a single flaw but a systemic failure driven by the convergence of multiple, interlocking challenges. The initial euphoria surrounding green hydrogen was predicated on a set of optimistic assumptions about cost, demand, and policy that have failed to materialize. This section dissects the four fundamental headwinds that have systematically dismantled the business cases for first-mover projects: an unsolvable cost equation, a paralyzing offtake impasse, debilitating policy uncertainty, and persistent infrastructure and technical barriers.

A. The Unsolvable Cost Equation: Production Costs, CAPEX Inflation, and the "Green Premium"

At the heart of the green hydrogen crisis lies a simple but brutal economic reality: it is prohibitively expensive. The entire investment thesis for the sector was built upon a narrative of rapidly falling costs, mirroring the successful trajectory of solar PV and wind. This narrative projected that declining renewable electricity prices and economies of scale in electrolyzer manufacturing would quickly make green hydrogen competitive with incumbent fossil-fuel-based "grey" hydrogen. 

This assumption has proven to be fundamentally flawed in the current market cycle. Instead of falling, production costs have stagnated or, in many cases, risen. A U.S. Department of Energy report in late 2024 noted that green hydrogen costs had actually increased by $2 to $3 per kilogram since its analysis in March 2023.This is a direct consequence of two parallel trends. First, macroeconomic headwinds, including global inflation and rising interest rates, have driven up the capital expenditure (CAPEX) for the massive renewable energy projects required to power electrolysis.Second, the cost of the hydrogen production facilities themselves has escalated. An analysis by BloombergNEF of real-world projects built in 2023 found that electrolysis plant installation costs in the U.S. and Europe were 55% higher than the firm had predicted just a year earlier.The Hydrogen Council reported that projects were facing cost escalations of up to 65%. 

This has resulted in a persistent and daunting "green premium." Green hydrogen remains at least two to six times more expensive than grey hydrogen produced from natural gas, and at least three times more expensive than using natural gas directly as a fuel.In Europe, offers for green hydrogen are not coming in below 150 euros per megawatt-hour (€/MWh), while natural gas can be procured for 30-35 €/MWh. 

The collision between flawed cost assumptions and this high-cost reality has proven fatal for the first wave of projects. These ventures were pitched to investors and boards based on financial models that banked on a future low-cost environment. When confronted with the high-cost present, their economic viability evaporated. The cancellations are, therefore, the logical and inevitable outcome of a market discovering that its foundational economic premises were incorrect. This forces a complete re-evaluation of project risk, shifting the industry's focus from chasing ambitious scale to building resilience against cost volatility. The decision by a company like ArcelorMittal to shelve a €2.5 billion steel plant conversion in Germany, even with a €1.3 billion subsidy on the table, demonstrates that even massive public support has been insufficient to bridge this viability gap. 

B. The Offtake Impasse: The "Chicken-or-Egg" Dilemma of Unbankable Demand

If high cost is the disease, the lack of willing buyers is the most acute symptom. Across the board, from Europe to Australia, the most frequently cited reason for project cancellations is the failure to secure binding, long-term offtake agreements.Because there is no established, liquid merchant market for green hydrogen, project developers cannot rely on selling their product on a spot basis. To secure the billions of dollars in financing required to build a plant, they must present lenders with bankable offtake contracts—typically 12-15 years in length—that guarantee a predictable revenue stream. 

The market has comprehensively failed to produce these agreements. Research from BloombergNEF starkly revealed that of all clean hydrogen capacity planned for 2030, a staggering 90% had no identified buyer.The International Energy Agency (IEA) has highlighted a massive and growing chasm between policy ambitions for production and concrete demand, with global demand targets stalling at just 14 million tonnes (Mt) against production targets of 27-35 Mt.This has created a classic and debilitating "chicken-or-egg" scenario: developers cannot get financing to build projects without offtakers, and potential offtakers are unwilling to sign legally binding, multi-decade contracts to purchase a high-cost fuel from a facility that does not yet exist. 

This impasse is not merely a sales and marketing problem; it is a structural market failure that exposes the profound limitations of the supply-side policy incentives that have dominated the landscape, particularly in the United States. The prevailing political logic, exemplified by the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), was that generously subsidizing the production of green hydrogen would be sufficient to stimulate demand. The wave of cancellations proves this assumption to be false. A production tax credit, while helpful to the developer, does not eliminate the enormous price gap for the end-user. It does not mitigate the risk a buyer takes by locking into a 15-year contract for a fuel that is multiples more expensive than their current input, potentially making their own products (be it steel, fertilizer, or chemicals) uncompetitive.

The cancellation of Provaris's Tiwi Hydrogen Project in Australia was explicitly due to a failure to secure offtake agreements.Shell scrapped its planned plant on Norway's west coast due to a "lack of demand".These failures demonstrate that policy has been targeting only one half of the market equation. Without equally robust, certain, and long-term 

demand-side policies—such as binding usage mandates, carbon pricing that penalizes incumbents, or Contracts for Difference (CfDs) that cover the green premium for the buyer—the risk remains squarely on the shoulders of the offtaker. As long as this is the case, the market will fail to form, and projects will continue to die on the vine.

C. The Perils of Policy: How Regulatory Uncertainty and Political Shifts Undermine Investment

For capital-intensive projects with multi-decade lifespans, policy and regulatory certainty are paramount. In the green hydrogen sector, however, policy has been a double-edged sword. The same government incentives that fueled the initial boom have, through their uncertain implementation and political fragility, become a primary driver of the subsequent bust.

The United States provides the most salient case study. The announcement of the IRA and its generous $3/kg 45V production tax credit in 2022 catalyzed a rush of project announcements.Yet, the subsequent two-to-three-year delay in finalizing the detailed implementation rules—particularly the contentious requirements for hourly time-matching and additionality—plunged the industry into a state of paralysis. The U.S. Hydrogen Alliance described this period as having created "semi-permanent detriments" to the industry, as developers were unable to finalize financial models and secure investment without clarity on their eligibility for the credit.This uncertainty was a direct contributor to the suspension of numerous projects. 

The cancellation of Air Products' $500 million facility in Massena, New York, is a direct consequence of this regulatory risk. The company explicitly stated that the project was being shelved because regulatory developments rendered its existing hydroelectric power supply ineligible for the tax credit, fatally wounding the project's economics.More recently, the change in the U.S. administration and the subsequent legislative push to curtail or end clean energy tax credits have introduced an existential threat to the entire framework, freezing investment decisions.Fortescue directly cited this "step back in green ambition" as a reason for cancelling its Arizona project. 

Europe has faced its own version of this problem. While its policy framework is more stable, it is also seen as excessively complex. Navigating the EU's hydrogen auction rules and the strict criteria for Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBOs) has caused developers to withdraw from funding processes and has added significant costs and administrative burdens to projects.One developer noted that EU regulations would make the hydrogen from their project 50% more expensive than necessary. 

This dynamic reveals a critical lesson: policy uncertainty functions as a direct and quantifiable "cost multiplier" that is just as damaging as direct CAPEX inflation. Financial models for large energy projects are exquisitely sensitive to the cost of capital. Regulatory and political uncertainty forces investors and lenders to assign a higher risk premium to a project, which in turn increases the interest rates on debt and the expected returns on equity. This higher cost of capital inflates the project's overall levelized cost, often to a breaking point. Therefore, policy uncertainty is not a soft, intangible risk; it is a hard financial burden that can, and has, single-handedly rendered otherwise viable projects unbankable.

D. Infrastructure Bottlenecks and Technical Realities

Beyond the challenging economics and policy landscapes, green hydrogen projects are running aground on the hard realities of physical infrastructure and technical integration. The narrative of the hydrogen boom was disproportionately focused on the production of electrolyzers, with a race to announce new "gigafactories".This created a "cart before the horse" scenario, where the industry solved for a perceived bottleneck—electrolyzer supply—while largely ignoring the less glamorous but equally critical enabling systems.  

A hydrogen project is a complex, integrated system, and an electrolyzer is just one component. It is useless without a massive and reliable supply of renewable electricity, a high-capacity grid connection, a secure water source, and the "balance of plant" equipment for compression, purification, and storage. The failure to plan for this entire value chain has become a primary cause of project delays and cancellations. Developers report facing waits of up to ten years for a grid connection in many countries.The cluster of seven major project cancellations in British Columbia, Canada, was driven in large part by a complete lack of enabling infrastructure: no adequate electricity supply, no hydrogen pipelines, and no export terminals. 

The lack of midstream infrastructure is a particularly acute problem. Transporting hydrogen is difficult and expensive. It requires either high-pressure tanks, cryogenic liquefaction to -253°C (an energy-intensive process), or conversion to a carrier like ammonia.Repurposing existing natural gas pipelines is a potential solution, but it is fraught with technical challenges like hydrogen embrittlement, which weakens the steel over time.Without a clear plan and significant investment in this midstream infrastructure, production sites remain isolated from potential markets, stranding assets and killing projects. 

This mismatch between ambition and reality has led to a severe market distortion. Electrolyzer manufacturing capacity doubled in 2023 to 25 GW per year, with China accounting for 60% of this total.Yet this capacity is "heavily underutilized," with actual output at a fraction of potential. BloombergNEF warns of a "severe overcapacity on a global scale" for electrolyzers, as factory capacity is projected to exceed demand from actual projects by a wide margin.This has put immense financial pressure on manufacturers. Norway's Nel, a leading electrolyzer maker, has seen its stock plummet and its order backlog shrink amid project woes, while Cummins has exited its Chinese electrolyzer joint venture after poor sales.The industry's premature focus on scaling one component of the value chain, while neglecting the others, has resulted in idle factories and a pipeline of stalled projects.  

IV. A World of Difference: Regional Dynamics in the Hydrogen Slowdown

While the headwinds buffeting the green hydrogen sector are global in nature, their impact is being refracted through the unique policy frameworks, market structures, and resource endowments of different regions. The project cancellations in the United States, Europe, and Australia are all rooted in the same fundamental challenges of cost and demand, but the specific pathways to failure reveal critical differences in regional strategies and their inherent weaknesses. A comparative analysis highlights a world of difference in how the hydrogen dream is unraveling.

A. The United States: The Inflation Reduction Act's Promise and Peril

The American green hydrogen story is one of immense promise undone by profound uncertainty. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and its 45V production tax credit, offering up to a remarkable $3 per kilogram of clean hydrogen, was designed to make the U.S. the most attractive destination for hydrogen investment globally.It triggered an immediate and massive wave of optimism and project announcements.  

However, this initial euphoria quickly soured. The U.S. strategy represents a pure supply-push model: it offers generous, uncapped tax credits to producers but imposes no corresponding mandates on consumers to actually purchase the hydrogen.As analyzed previously, this model failed to solve the offtake impasse. More damaging, however, has been the crippling uncertainty surrounding the policy itself. The two-year delay in finalizing the tax credit's implementation rules left the industry in limbo, unable to make FIDs.This was followed by the introduction of a new administration openly hostile to clean energy incentives, creating existential risk for the entire policy framework. 

The result has been a cascade of high-profile cancellations. Air Products' Massena project, Fortescue's Arizona hub, and Woodside Energy's H2OK project were all casualties of this environment, where the economics were rendered unworkable either by specific regulatory interpretations or by the overarching cloud of policy risk.The U.S. experience offers a powerful lesson: the 

certainty and longevity of a policy are far more critical for driving multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade investments than its sheer generosity. An incredibly generous subsidy that is unstable or unpredictable is ultimately less effective and more damaging than a more modest but legislatively durable and bankable support mechanism.

B. Europe: A First-Mover Advantage Lost to Complexity and Cost?

Europe, an early and ambitious leader in hydrogen strategy, is now facing the prospect of losing its first-mover advantage. The IEA has explicitly warned that Europe is "losing its competitive advantage" to China and the U.S., as its growth in installed electrolyzer capacity lags significantly.The continent has seen a raft of cancellations and scale-backs from major players including ArcelorMittal in Germany, Iberdrola and Repsol in Spain, and Shell and BP across the region.A report from Westwood noted that in the fourth quarter of 2024 alone, European projects totaling 4.7 GW were stalled or cancelled, while only a single 100 MW project reached FID. 

The European predicament stems from a different set of factors than in the U.S. In contrast to the American supply-push, the EU has pursued a demand-pull strategy, centered on mandates such as the Renewable Energy Directive (RED III), which requires 42% of hydrogen used in industry to be renewable by 2030.In theory, this should create a guaranteed market. However, this demand-side pull has not been strong enough to overcome the immense gravitational forces of high costs and regulatory complexity.  

Europe's high energy prices make green hydrogen production inherently more expensive than in regions with cheaper renewables. Compounding this is the EU's regulatory approach, which, in its pursuit of creating a "gold standard" for green hydrogen, has become a significant barrier to progress. The complex rules for RFNBOs, including strict additionality and temporal matching requirements, and the intricate, auction-based subsidy schemes of the European Hydrogen Bank, have been criticized for deterring investment and adding significant cost and complexity to projects.Europe's regulatory perfectionism, while well-intentioned, has inadvertently slowed deployment and made its projects less competitive on a global scale. It is a case of the best being the enemy of the good, where the quest for the perfect green molecule has hindered the production of any green molecules at all.  

C. Australia: A Renewable Superpower's Struggle with On-the-Ground Reality

Australia has long been touted as a potential green energy superpower, possessing world-class solar and wind resources, vast tracts of available land, and strategic proximity to Asian markets.The national strategy envisioned Australia becoming a "major global player" in hydrogen by 2030, exporting its renewable bounty to the world. 

The reality on the ground, however, has been one of struggle and retreat. High-profile projects by Australian champions like Fortescue and Woodside have been shelved, as have ventures by international traders like Trafigura.The cancellation of the A$12.5 billion liquefied hydrogen project in Queensland, after the government pulled its funding, was a particularly heavy blow. 

The Australian paradox is that its unparalleled resource advantage is being nullified by prohibitively high on-the-ground execution costs. Analysis by Wood Mackenzie found that due to elevated engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) costs and high power prices, the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) in Australia exceeds a staggering $10/kg, rendering it completely uncompetitive in the global market.Furthermore, its primary policy support mechanism, the Hydrogen Headstart program, offers incentives (around $1.30/kg) that are seen as too small to compete with the more aggressive (though now uncertain) subsidies available elsewhere, like the U.S. IRA. 

Australia's challenges provide a crucial cautionary tale for other resource-rich nations. The case of Australia demonstrates that abundant natural resources do not automatically translate to market leadership in the energy transition. Execution capability, competitive local supply chains, control of EPC costs, and robust, internationally competitive policy support are equally, if not more, critical determinants of success.

The distinct strategic approaches and resulting challenges in these key regions are summarized in the following table.

Export to Sheets

V. Market Correction or Existential Crisis? Interpreting the Sector's Trajectory

The deluge of negative headlines, project cancellations, and collapsing stock prices has prompted a fundamental question: is the green hydrogen dream dying, or is the industry simply experiencing the painful but necessary growing pains of any disruptive technology? A deeper analysis of the market dynamics suggests the latter. The current downturn is not an existential crisis but a severe and overdue market correction—a classic "valley of disillusionment"—that is forcing the sector to mature from speculative hype toward commercial reality.

A. From Hype Cycle to "Valley of Disillusionment"

The trajectory of the green hydrogen sector over the past five years maps almost perfectly onto the Gartner Hype Cycle model for emerging technologies. The period from 2020 to 2022 was the "Peak of Inflated Expectations," fueled by ambitious net-zero pledges from governments and corporations, and the promise of massive subsidy programs like the U.S. IRA and the EU Green Deal. This spurred a frenzy of project announcements that far outpaced the industry's actual capacity for execution and the market's real-world demand. 

The industry has now plunged headlong into the "Trough of Disillusionment." The CEO of Portuguese utility EDP, Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade, aptly captured the mood, stating, "Green hydrogen was an inflated expectation that has turned into a valley of disillusionment".This phase is characterized by the failure of early-stage projects to deliver on their promises, a waning of investor interest as the harsh realities of cost and complexity become apparent, and a wave of negative press.  

This correction, while painful, is a critical and healthy process for the long-term viability of the sector. It serves to filter out the wave of speculative, poorly conceived, and economically unviable projects that were announced during the peak of the hype. The Hydrogen Council acknowledges this phenomenon as a "natural attrition" that drives industry maturation by phasing out weaker projects and allowing capital and talent to concentrate on those with the highest potential for success.This process is not unique to hydrogen; it was seen in the early days of the now-mature wind and solar industries, where typical project success rates from initial announcement to final commissioning were only in the range of 10% to 20%. 

B. Sizing the Setback: A Collision of Forecasts and Reality

The central tension defining the hydrogen market today is the massive disconnect between the announced project pipeline and the fraction that is actually moving forward. On one hand, the scale of ambition remains breathtaking. The Hydrogen Council reports that total announced investments through 2030 have grown to $680 billion, and that committed capital for projects that have passed FID has seen a seven-fold increase since 2020, now standing at $75 billion.The IEA's project database shows a potential for 49 Mtpa of low-emissions hydrogen production by 2030, an increase from the 38 Mtpa it tracked in its 2023 review.Market research firms continue to project enormous compound annual growth rates, with one prominent forecast seeing the market growing from approximately $8 billion in 2024 to over $60 billion by 2030. 

On the other hand, the on-the-ground reality is one of paralysis. Of the IEA's nearly 50 Mtpa pipeline, a mere 4% has reached FID or is under construction.Similarly, the Hydrogen Council notes that less than 7% of announced electrolytic capacity had passed the FID stage globally as of May 2024.BloombergNEF has tempered its own forecasts, suggesting a more realistic 16 Mtpa of capacity could come online by 2030—a significant figure, but a fraction of the headline ambitions. 

This chasm between the announced potential and the committed reality represents the "Great Stall." It is a market awash in announced capital but starved of the confidence needed to make final commitments. The risk factors detailed in Section III—cost, offtake, and policy—have created a barrier to entry so high that the vast majority of the pipeline remains stuck in early-stage development, vulnerable to cancellation. 

C. Signs of Life: Identifying Pockets of Progress

Despite the widespread gloom, it would be a mistake to declare the entire sector dead. Beneath the headline-grabbing cancellations, pockets of tangible progress are emerging, and they provide a clear blueprint for what a viable hydrogen future might look like.

The IEA reports that the global pipeline of projects reaching FID actually doubled in the past year, from 1.7 Mtpa to 3.4 Mtpa.This growth is being driven by specific regions and project types. China has emerged as the undisputed global leader in deployment, accounting for over 40% of the 6.5 GW of electrolyzer capacity that reached FID in the last 12 months.Its state-driven industrial policy and leadership in manufacturing are enabling it to build out capacity at a scale and speed no other region can match.  

In Europe, despite its challenges, FIDs for electrolysis projects quadrupled over the last year to reach more than 2 GW, spurred by the confirmation of government funding for several large projects.The projects that are successfully moving forward, like the massive 2.2 GW NEOM green hydrogen and ammonia project in Saudi Arabia, share common characteristics.They are typically:  

1. Located in regions with access to low-cost, abundant renewable energy.
2. Beneficiaries of strong, clear, and unwavering government support and de-risking.
3. Vertically integrated or co-located with a guaranteed, large-scale industrial offtaker.

The focus of these successful projects is also narrowing. The diffuse dream of hydrogen powering everything from passenger cars to home heating is fading.Instead, the viable projects are relentlessly focused on the hard-to-abate sectors where hydrogen has a clear and defensible value proposition as a chemical feedstock or a high-temperature industrial fuel with few scalable, zero-carbon alternatives. These core markets are the replacement of existing grey hydrogen in oil refining and ammonia production, and the decarbonization of steel manufacturing through direct reduced iron (DRI) processes. 

This emerging pattern suggests that the future of hydrogen, at least in the medium term, is not as a ubiquitous, traded energy commodity like natural gas. Rather, it points toward a more focused, hub-based model, where large-scale production is developed hand-in-glove with co-located industrial demand, creating closed-loop ecosystems that minimize market and infrastructure risk.

VI. Pathways to Viability: Strategic Recommendations for a Resilient Hydrogen Future

The market correction of 2023-2025, while disruptive, has provided the green hydrogen industry with a valuable, if painful, dose of reality. The failures of the first wave of ambitious projects have exposed the sector's foundational weaknesses and offer clear lessons for building a more resilient and commercially viable path forward. The following strategic recommendations are directed at the key stakeholders—policymakers, investors, and developers—whose actions will determine whether the industry can successfully navigate the "valley of disillusionment" and emerge onto a sustainable "slope of enlightenment."

A. For Policymakers: Create Certainty, Drive Demand, and Build Infrastructure

The role of government is not merely to provide funding but to create a stable and predictable market ecosystem where private capital can be deployed with confidence. The evidence from the recent downturn points to three critical imperatives for policymakers.

• Recommendation 1: Shift Focus from Supply-Push to Demand-Pull. The primary lesson from the offtake impasse is that subsidizing production alone is insufficient to create a market. The risk of the "green premium" must be addressed directly on the demand side. Policymakers should prioritize the implementation of robust, long-term demand-side mechanisms. These include establishing binding mandates and quotas for the use of green hydrogen in specific industrial sectors, as Europe has begun to do with RED III.Governments can also leverage their own purchasing power through public procurement policies that specify the use of "green steel" and other low-carbon materials in public infrastructure projects.Finally, well-designed and adequately funded Contracts for Difference (CfDs) or similar auction mechanisms are essential tools to bridge the price gap and de-risk long-term offtake agreements for buyers, thereby making projects bankable. 
• Recommendation 2: Prioritize Regulatory Certainty Above All Else. The U.S. case study demonstrates that an uncertain or politically fragile subsidy can be more damaging than no subsidy at all. Investment in capital-intensive, long-lived assets is impossible without a clear and stable regulatory horizon. Governments must provide clear, simple, and, most importantly, durable legal and regulatory frameworks for hydrogen. This means finalizing implementation rules swiftly, avoiding the temptation to constantly tweak regulations, and building broad political consensus to ensure policy longevity across election cycles. The inclusion of grandfathering clauses, which protect projects that are built under one set of rules from subsequent changes, is an essential feature for building investor confidence. 
• Recommendation 3: Proactively Plan and Fund Enabling Infrastructure. Projects are failing not just on their own merits, but because the broader energy system cannot support them. Governments must move beyond a focus on hydrogen-specific policy and engage in integrated, system-wide energy planning. This involves proactively identifying and addressing the bottlenecks in grid capacity, electricity transmission, and water supply that are stymying project development. Furthermore, public-private partnerships should be established to plan and co-invest in shared, multi-user infrastructure, such as hydrogen pipelines and storage facilities, particularly in the context of developing industrial hubs where production and consumption can be co-located to minimize logistical costs and risks. 

B. For Investors: Navigate Risk, Identify Viable Markets, and Structure Bankable Deals

The era of speculative, hype-driven investment in hydrogen is over. For investors, the new paradigm must be one of rigorous diligence, risk mitigation, and pragmatic market selection.

• Recommendation 1: Re-evaluate Risk and Adopt Pragmatism. Financial models must be stress-tested against more realistic, conservative assumptions. This includes assuming higher-for-longer capital and operating costs, and discounting the likelihood of securing offtake agreements at a significant green premium. The focus of investment should shift from projects with the most ambitious headline capacity to those with a clear, defensible, and resilient competitive advantage based on tangible factors like access to exceptionally low-cost renewables or proprietary technology.
• Recommendation 2: Follow the Policy Certainty. In a sector so heavily dependent on government support, policy risk is a primary determinant of investment success. Investors should prioritize deploying capital in jurisdictions that offer stable, long-term, and bankable policy frameworks that address both the supply and demand sides of the market equation. A thorough analysis of a region's political stability and the durability of its climate policies is now as important as an analysis of its wind and solar resources. Regions with high policy volatility should be approached with extreme caution, regardless of their resource potential.
• Recommendation 3: Focus on Integrated Projects and Industrial Hubs. The most resilient and bankable projects emerging from the downturn are those that minimize market risk through integration. Investors should favor projects that are vertically integrated with a captive offtaker (e.g., a steel producer building its own hydrogen supply) or are located within a planned industrial hub. Hubs allow for the pooling of demand from multiple offtakers, which diversifies risk and creates economies of scale for shared infrastructure, making the entire ecosystem more attractive and financially robust. 

C. For Developers: De-Risk Execution and Embrace Realism

For project developers on the front lines, the lessons from the market correction are stark. The "build it and they will come" approach has been definitively proven to be a failed strategy. Survival and success in the new hydrogen landscape will require a fundamental shift in approach toward de-risking, realism, and relentless focus.

• Recommendation 1: Secure Offtake Before Breaking Ground. The single most important task for a developer is to secure a binding, long-term, and bankable offtake agreement. This must be treated as the first and most critical milestone in the project development lifecycle, preceding major capital commitments. Without a committed buyer, a project is merely a speculative concept.
• Recommendation 2: Start Small, Then Scale. The ambition to build giga-scale projects from a standing start has proven perilous, with massive capital at risk on unproven integrated systems. A more prudent and viable pathway is to pursue a modular, phased approach. Developers should focus on deploying smaller-scale projects (in the tens of megawatts, not gigawatts) to prove the viability of their technology, refine their operational models, establish relationships with offtakers, and build a track record of successful execution before attempting to scale up to massive capital outlays. 
• Recommendation 3: Focus on the Right Applications. The market has spoken clearly: the broad, diffuse vision of hydrogen as a universal energy carrier is not commercially viable today. Developers must abandon speculative use cases and concentrate exclusively on the hard-to-abate sectors where green hydrogen offers a distinct and defensible value proposition against the limited number of scalable alternatives. This means focusing on industrial markets: as a feedstock to produce green ammonia and green methanol, as a reductant for green steel manufacturing, and in high-temperature industrial heat applications. These are the markets where customers exist today and where the pathway to decarbonization most clearly and necessarily runs through the hydrogen molecule. 

Sources used in the reportargusmedia.comFortescue scraps US, Australia green hydrogen projects | Latest Market News - Argus Media Opens in a new windowcleantech.comInvesting in Green Hydrogen 2024: Tackling Green Hydrogen's Growing Pains | Cleantech Group Opens in a new windowhydrogencouncil.comGlobal hydrogen industry reports $75 billion in committed capital but climate targets at stake due to project delays Opens in a new windowlibertyspecialtymarkets.comGreen Hydrogen Scale-up: Giga Projects and Mega-challenges - Liberty Specialty Markets Opens in a new windowilluminem.comAre we there yet? Clean hydrogen's challenges and opportunities in 2024 | illuminem Opens in a new windowhydrogencouncil.comHydrogen Insights 2024 Opens in a new windowpgjonline.compgjonline.com Opens in a new windowhydrogennewsletter.comGlobal Green Hydrogen Projects Face Setbacks Due to Costs and Demand Opens in a new windowhydrogennewsletter.comGlobal Green Hydrogen Projects Face Setbacks Opens in a new windowe2.orgE2: $22 Billion in Clean Energy Projects Cancelled in First Half of 2025; $6.7 Billion Cancelled in June - E2.org Opens in a new windowsubscriber.politicopro.comReport: $22B in clean energy projects canceled or downsized this year - POLITICO Pro Opens in a new windowcompressortech2.comEuropean hydrogen infrastructure struggles to pick up momentum - COMPRESSORtech2 Opens in a new windowhydrogeninsight.comHydrogen Insight | Hydrogen Insight Opens in a new windowbrusselssignal.eu'Almost one in five' European hydrogen projects scrapped in 2024 - Brussels Signal Opens in a new windowmorningstar.comFortescue Iron Ore Shipments Rise; Cancels Green Hydrogen Projects - Morningstar Opens in a new windowmorningstar.comFortescue Iron Ore Shipments Rise; Cancels Green Hydrogen Projects — Update Opens in a new windowglobalbankingandfinance.comFactbox-Cancelled and postponed green hydrogen projects - Global Banking | Finance | Review Opens in a new windowh2-view.comWoodside Energy's 'disciplined approach' drives cancellation of ... Opens in a new windowhydrogeninsight.comFortescue abandons two green hydrogen projects which had both ... Opens in a new windowcleantechnica.comFortescue Cancels Flagship Hydrogen Projects: UK Should Take ... Opens in a new windowcanarymedia.comThe billion-dollar US green hydrogen boom ended ... - Canary Media Opens in a new windowcleantechnica.com7 Projects Down In The Inevitable Death Of Hydrogen For Energy In ... Opens in a new windowtankterminals.comCancelled and Postponed Green Hydrogen Projects | TankTerminals Opens in a new windowgrandviewresearch.comGreen Hydrogen Market Size, Share & Growth Report, 2030 - Grand View Research Opens in a new windowbelfercenter.orgThe Future of Green Hydrogen Value Chains: Geopolitical and Market Implications in the Industrial Sector | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Opens in a new windowpwc.comAnalysing the future cost of green hydrogen - PwC Opens in a new windowbelfercenter.orgStimulating Clean Hydrogen Demand: The Current Landscape - Belfer Center Opens in a new windowplugpower.comThe Rise of Green Hydrogen: Stats, Trends, and Future Projections - Plug Power Opens in a new windowhydrogenexchange.ioHydrogen Market Poised for Rapid Growth Over Next 12 Months, Analysts Say Opens in a new windowabout.bnef.comInsights | BloombergNEF Opens in a new windowinvesting.comGreen hydrogen retreat poses threat to emissions targets By Reuters Opens in a new windowabout.bnef.comFive Energy Transition Lessons for 2025 | BloombergNEF Opens in a new windowenergiesmedia.comHydrogen Energy in 2025: Breaking Down Technical Barriers and ... Opens in a new windowiea.orgwww.iea.org Opens in a new windowobservatory.clean-hydrogen.europa.euIEA publishes Global Hydrogen Review 2024 Opens in a new windowenlit.worldHydrogen market still sluggish shows IEA's 2024 global review | Enlit World Opens in a new windowammoniaenergy.orgGlobal Hydrogen Review 2024: FID doubles, low-emission ammonia takes center stage Opens in a new windowhydrogeneurope.euIEA publishes Global Hydrogen Review 2024 Opens in a new windowgh2.orggh2.org Opens in a new windowprojectfinance.lawKey issues for hydrogen developers | Norton Rose Fulbright - June 2023 Opens in a new windowpwc.comGreen hydrogen economy - predicted development of tomorrow - PwC Opens in a new windowmillerthomson.comChallenges in developing the hydrogen industry: More than hot air - Part 1 | Miller Thomson Opens in a new windowiea.orgHydrogen production – Global Hydrogen Review 2024 – Analysis - IEA Opens in a new windowgh2.orgOfftake agreements and pricing - Green Hydrogen Organisation Opens in a new windowiea.orgExecutive summary – Global Hydrogen Review 2024 – Analysis - IEA Opens in a new windowargusmedia.comUS H2 projects stall, incentives fall short: Technip | Latest Market News - Argus Media Opens in a new windowrmi.orgHydrogen State of the Union: Where We Stand in 2024 - RMI Opens in a new windowhydrogeninsight.com'Australia is falling behind Europe and the Middle East on green hydrogen, despite its renewables and land advantages': analyst Opens in a new windowminister.dcceew.gov.auA renewables relationship: Europe and Australia as key partners - Ministers Opens in a new windowatlanticcouncil.orgToward harmonizing transatlantic hydrogen policies: Understanding the gaps Opens in a new windowhydrogen-portal.comComparative analysis of national hydrogen strategies Opens in a new windowmandg.comHow does energy transition policy differ in the US and Europe? Opens in a new windowSources read but not used in the report